Cheers,
Syd.
Can anybody shed any light on the state of Robin Hood Sports Cars?
At the Newark Kit Car Show I bought some wheels, some raceline 1.2. They were delivered with the wrong offset and no fitting kit. I have tried to get
them replaced with the Sierra Offset, they are on order I was told. After weeks of calls and emails no sign of them so I asked for a refund, no
problem we’ll pick the wheels up then refund you!! No you wont as you will then have my wheels and my money. Anyway they agreed to refund my money at
the Harrogate Kit Car Show, they have not turned up.
Cheers,
Andy
i wouldnt of thought so as they have only just been taken over. so loads of new money injected.
but i might be wrong so i'll stand and wait to be shouted at.
also wasnt there talk of them buying westfield on here a few months ago ?
Don't think they are in any trouble but they have always been known for their poor customer relations, most of this was down to the original owner but maybe the new guys are just as bad!
hi, i will find out for you , i only live four miles away.Will let you know
Find Volvorsport, he's very close to Robin Hood Sportscars, (he works there), so should be able to answer and help.
Cheers,
Syd.
i heard recently that a guy who had who had built a robin hood went for his SVA and the inspector failed him claiming that the chassis was weak in
certain places
now apparently VOSA are backing their inspector 110% so what does that say about the robin hood chassis?not good news IMO
anyway i
dont know what has come of it after that but maybe VOSA have been in touch with robin hood and there has been a massive shake up since they have been
over taken, and that maybe why knowbody has got round to refunding your money yet?
Heard today at Harrogate that Robin Hood pulled out at 3pm yesterday.
intriguing, nes pa?
Cheers
Chris
interesting 
theres been talk of this on th RH site, bit like the take over talk about Westfield,
must be taken with a large pinch of salt.
unfortunatly RH and custormer service dont seam to go together, and i think its there anual hols at the mo, keep at it im sure theres a refund waiting
for you some where
as for the Lieghtwieght failure, yes its true, but several have passed at other centres, the builders waiting for more feedback from both VOSA and
RH
problem seams tobe the testers interpretation of the book, he wasnt happy about it being monocoque.with little real chassi to strenghthen it.
Mitch
quote:
he wasnt happy about it being monocoque.with little real chassi to strenghthen it
post from RH site
http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=12786&st=15
Mitch
Having read that thread it seems that part of the problem is the way the monocoque is riveted and bonded together. It says that one of the failure points is having the front suspension points screwed/riveted on. That seems to be a fair point though. otherwise it appears to be because it's a riveted ally monocoque. Having seen a few pics of it, I can understand why the tester failed it. Several parts look to be some what lacking in strength and longevity. If it where weldes steel , it MAY be ok, but riveted ally is jut too weak/likely to fail early in its life.
That's pretty poor, even from a government run organisation.
Failure sheet stated:
"Monocoque has absence of structural box section in construction"
Errmm...perhaps that's because it's a monocoque? Seem like Vosa have an arse-elbow identification issue...
quote:
Originally posted by DIY Si
Having read that thread it seems that part of the problem is the way the monocoque is riveted and bonded together. It says that one of the failure points is having the front suspension points screwed/riveted on. That seems to be a fair point though. otherwise it appears to be because it's a riveted ally monocoque. Having seen a few pics of it, I can understand why the tester failed it. Several parts look to be some what lacking in strength and longevity. If it where weldes steel , it MAY be ok, but riveted ally is jut too weak/likely to fail early in its life.
Fair enough. Whilst I'm not an sva tester, should those chassis's have passed or is it just this tester being an ar$e? Purely in the
interest of a fair fight/arguement.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
That's pretty poor, even from a government run organisation.
Failure sheet stated:
"Monocoque has absence of structural box section in construction"
Errmm...perhaps that's because it's a monocoque? Seem like Vosa have an arse-elbow identification issue...
Monocoque is French for "single shell", defining a structure that has a stressed "skin". Box sections may or may not be
incorporated into the structure, but their abscence does not preclude a structure being a monocoque!
Actualy, all the (steel) monocoque RH's I have seen have the top of the side panels folded around to form a box-like structure, does the
Lightweight do this?
[Edited on 12/8/06 by MikeRJ]
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
Monocoque is French for "single shell", defining a structure that has a stressed "skin". Box sections may or may not be incorporated into the structure, but their abscence does not preclude a structure being a monocoque!
Actualy, all the (steel) monocoque RH's I have seen have the top of the side panels folded around to form a box-like structure, does the Lightweight do this?
[Edited on 12/8/06 by MikeRJ]
I used to be a regular on RHOCAR (still go there now and then) and came very close to buying one of the Lieghtweights.
I was just about to send off a diposit when one of the other members who is a well respected engineer sent me a U2U warning not to touch it with a
bardgepole, the main point of weekness he pointed out to me was the front suspension
Looks like he may have been right.
Its a shame because i think its one of the nicest looking 7s in terms of its proportions. I also like the way that RH have taken a different approach
from all the spaceframes but it now seems that everyone else used spaceframes for a reason!
Cheers.
There are 2 different test centers here in sweden that a home built car must pass to get on the road. Both of them has said that the RH lightweight construction is not up to standard for road use.
I remember this chassis being slated over 2 years ago.
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=10393
Quote from ChrisG in that thread...
The only seven Stevie Wonder can read.
Very, very, funny. I wish I had thought of that.
Hi people,
My name is Trevor Bennett, and I am the person with the failed Robinhood Lightweight.
I have built the chassis to the letter using RH's build DVD's - To say I'm gutted is an understatement.
For my extensive build website go to
http://www.lightweightkitcar.blogspot.com
I am dealing with RH to try and get a speedy outcome to this, but it is a hugely disappointing setback.
Thanks for all your kind words so far guys,
Trevor.
Rescued attachment LW1.jpg
Good news for me anyway, I got my money back and a free exhaust.
They aim to sell 500 kits this year!
Thanks to all that replied.
Andy
LightweightRobinHood
hi mate
finger crossed for you, not good news at all
did look at the rh's but decided to go luego instead.
btw nice looking car!
lets hope rhsc get their fingers out and start helping you with this problem, only time will tell though!!
I think I said before that the Lightweight is easily the best looking LSIS that RH have ever designed.
If it really is so badly lacking in structural integrity that it will not pass an SVA, the fact that several have already passed speaks volumes about
the effectiveness of the SVA test.
As someone said to me once, if your chassis fails at high speed, the person you run over probably isn't going to be particularly concerned about
the radius of your wiper arm...
Trevor,
I sincerely hope that you get this resolved to your satisfaction.
I think Robin Hood are going to have to step in and get a car stress analysed or tested to prove the suitability or not of the chassis. If they
can't I'd be getting lawyered up and getting a big chunk of money, expenses and time back off them!
I was tearing my hair out waiting the four days between passing the SVA and taking it to the DVLA and the registration docs arriving in the post. I
can't imagine potentially having to wait 6 months for a re-test.
All the best.
Mike
Hi Trev, one irony is that you have done a better job building yours than RH managed on their own one
It looks very well done mate.
My advise.......sue the arse off RH and then rip the car apart and use the good bits to build a Locost
Just kidding dude, all the best.
Scotty.
I think many people will be watchin
the out come of this one. If a major
car manufacture have a problem they
recall there vehicles what will RH do
with this one it aint good for business!!
how many are running round wit this
problem? A 7s chassis has to be right
if it aint get it off the market. Do hope
you get sorted asap come on RH were
are you...... other than missin from Harrogate BAD BAD BOYS!!!
quote:
Originally posted by LightweightRobinHood
Hi people,
My name is Trevor Bennett, and I am the person with the failed Robinhood Lightweight.
I have built the chassis to the letter using RH's build DVD's - To say I'm gutted is an understatement.
For my extensive build website go to
I am dealing with RH to try and get a speedy outcome to this, but it is a hugely disappointing setback.
Thanks for all your kind words so far guys,
Trevor.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
As someone said to me once, if your chassis fails at high speed, the person you run over probably isn't going to be particularly concerned about the radius of your wiper arm...
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
As someone said to me once, if your chassis fails at high speed, the person you run over probably isn't going to be particularly concerned about the radius of your wiper arm...
Exceot most accidents are at under 20mph and then you're likely to end up with broken bones and serious cuts - a nicely radiused wiper arm reduces the chances of the cuts .......... that was the explanation a traffic police man i knew a few years ago on TOL gave me.
What VOSA test would you like to see introduced? crash test? detailed mathematical analysis? Engineer reports during the build (like the
Australians) None of those is locost friendly, and the manufacturers would have to pass on the costs.
99.9% of the time an SVA inspector will be able to correctly assess if a chassis is safe visually (quality of welds and a basic knowledge of correct
triangulation of a spaceframe will give you that). It's only the weird/different designs (metal or composite moncoques being a complex
engineering area) that cause the occasional problematic result like this one.
SVA tester discression is vital IMO otherwise the system will become unworkable for the amateur.
Well, having seen a build diary of a horribly built 4WD locost some time ago that somehow scraped through it's SVA, I think there should be some
written rules about the basic structure and method of construction. If something unusual such an alloy monocoque is involved perhaps the manufacturers
should be sending details of their testing to VOSA?
Discretion is a great thing when applied to trival/non-safety related matters, but this episode just goes to prove how that same discretion has either
allowed several potentialy dangerous chassis on the road, or (hopefully) has unfairly penalised the builder of a perfectly safe car.
[Edited on 15/8/06 by MikeRJ]
Trev,
First off, yeah what an absolute pain in the derriere, and all the best for a speedy resolution.
I'm sure there's a great many on here who have thought about a RH, as they always seemed to be very competitive price wise. I'm sure
quality was as much related to the effort of the builder as a substitute for a higher purchase price.
The idea of the lightweight is great, and agree with others' comments that it is, indeed, a good looking car - a testament to you perhaps.
Have taken out legal cover with your "tintop", it may be worth contacting them, to see if they would be willing to help, should the need
arise.
As for waiting six months, I'd forget that. I would be surprised if VOSA/SVA testers didn't have a "newsletter" of sorts that will
be doing the rounds like wildfire iro the lightweight.
Unfortunately, I think it's all going to be down to RH and a bit more patience on your part.
Feel incredibly sorry for you, and others who, I've no doubt had their enthusiasm dampened somewhat.
ATB
Simon
This has been a matter i have been thinking about several times recently.
Surely the main point (sorry if its repetition) is that the tester should airon theside of caution. After all if it is unfitfor thejobthen they would
be the first under criticism.
Id give that tester a handshake if i met him. surely he's doing the right thing... getting the builder (whose getting the manufacturer) to supply
proof.
I honestly dont think theres anything wrong in being over cautious. Id prefer no car to a hearse....
... hang on! too close to truth! the only car i have i physically cant work on atm! but for thoseof you who dont know, thats another issue.
having read the thread on rhocar, i think its disgusting the lack of attention RHSC are paying the to the matter. VOSA have said that all they need is stress testing figures or a chassis to be tested on a seatbelt puller, and the problem is solved, but RHSC cant even answer the bloody phone. What muppets...
i feel sorry for the people who have bought these particular kits.
"potentially" a kit that will not pass sva without some serious modifications
rh dont (on the surface) seem to care a toss !!
the owners club is getting a bit heated about it now !!
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
VOSA have said that all they need is stress testing figures or a chassis to be tested on a seatbelt puller, and the problem is solved, but RHSC cant even answer the bloody phone. What muppets...
How this applies to the kit industry I'm not sure, but seems to be ignored blatantly and constantly...
It is illegal to sell a development prototype vehicle, or an R&D vehicle to a second user.
They MUST be destroyed, or put in a museum or similar.
Cheers,
Syd.
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
It is illegal to sell a development prototype vehicle, or an R&D vehicle to a second user.
They MUST be destroyed, or put in a museum or similar.
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
It is illegal to sell a development prototype vehicle, or an R&D vehicle to a second user.
They MUST be destroyed, or put in a museum or similar.
Really? Why is that? Big companies don't sell their prototypes because they don't pay tax on them. They are often used for mileage accumulation or for potentially destructive tests. Cars are used for assembly staff training and so are dismantled 100 times or more.
Rover sold off a load of 75s that were prototypes as they had paid the tax and had used them as company cars for a year or two.
A prototype has no special legal status. If it has had tests performed on it that may have weakened it then it should not be used on the road but if not then it is perfectly saleable.
quote:
Really? Why is that? Big companies don't sell their prototypes because they don't pay tax on them. They are often used for mileage accumulation or for potentially destructive tests. Cars are used for assembly staff training and so are dismantled 100 times or more.
Rover sold off a load of 75s that were prototypes as they had paid the tax and had used them as company cars for a year or two.
A prototype has no special legal status. If it has had tests performed on it that may have weakened it then it should not be used on the road but if not then it is perfectly saleable.
Thanks Syd - that clears things up a bit, and I know not to register mine as a prototype!! Presumably there must be some benefits of doing so for the
actual manufacturers though.
I think the MG Sport and Racing cars sold were probably development cars, but there may have been a few prototypes which were not registered at all
included - i can't remember the details.
[Edited on 20/8/06 by andyps]
quote:
Originally posted by the_fbi
<speculation>
Surely RH are just taking the time to make sure all their ducks are in a row(*) before submitting something, it failing, and them being in an even more sticky situation.
(*) Selling off any old chassis (recent eBay ad) which may have be sitting around outside yet were the ones used for any stress analysis and therefore due to age hardening would fail any tests. Having sold them they can't be called on for submittal. If they "lost/destroyed" them they would be in a difficult position. Having sold them they are OK.
</speculation>
Would build insurance cover this? Or is it more of a TPFT?
quote:
Originally posted by JamJah
Would build insurance cover this? Or is it more of a TPFT?
quote:
Maximum sum insured = Cost of kit, accessories, parts (new / re-conditioned) for which valid receipts available.
Risks insured: Fire, Theft, Malicious Damage, Aircraft, Explosion, Riot, Impact, Storm, Flood, Burst Pipes.
Car under construction must normally be kept in a locked garage/workshop.
What actually is the weight of the Lightweight?
Would be interested to know if there's much saving over a spaceframe Seven.
Presumably it got weighed as part of the failed SVA test, Trevor, could you tell us how much the car came in at?
Thanks,
James
Doing a search on rhocar.org finds a quote from "diyer"
"Mu lightweight 2.0l zetec powered hood weighed in at 590kg"
Light compared to a 2b, but not that impressive IMO.
I've been holding off asking this question, but as we're getting more generic ......
i was under the impression that Ali has an issue that it has no elastic limit. Every time it flexes it work hardens. How have robin hood modified the
design to take this into account when mounting suspension etc?
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
I've been holding off asking this question, but as we're getting more generic ......
i was under the impression that Ali has an issue that it has no elastic limit. Every time it flexes it work hardens. How have robin hood modified the design to take this into account when mounting suspension etc?
The original press release said that you could have a choice of ali, mild or stainless steel. That was before they were taken over though.
Really really sorry to hear about your troubles Trevour.
Has there been any more news? Please keep us informed as I'm sure we are all thinking of you and hoping for a satisfactory solution for you.
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
Modified which design? They don't make a steel version of this chassis as far as I know?
I hate to say this but a reliable source has informed me that the investment company who own RH had the liquidators in on Thursday/Friday. I agree
that its not good to speculate but I wouldn't post this if I wasn't confident in the accuracy of the information. Despite that, I do
sincerely hope it is wrong especially for those that have invested time and money into the Lightweight kits that may never pass SVA, but from what Ive
heard it doesnt look good.
I'd heard the same rumour, but wasn't commenting since my source was of unknown reliability. If they aren't they should say so to
quash the rumours a.s.a.p.
I would note RH have had their main sites suspended for some reason.
Try http://www.robinhoodengineering.co.uk
or http://www.robinhoodsportscars.co.uk
http://www.lolocost.co.uk/ and http://www.mr2kit.co.uk/ are still working...
Only reason I've seen that happen is when someone hasn't paid their web hosting company for some reason.
theres a locked thread on rhocar where someone implies that he intends to get a winding up order on RHSC, for money owed. That was 16 days ago.
Certainly looks bleak for them, but it could be a series of coincidences. Would explain a lot though.
Broken Robin Hood Website
That's gotta be proper gut wrenching for someone, hope I'm not repeating from above, not read it all but didnt Robin hood recently change
hands for a 6 figure sum ?
I know they have there fair share of knockers but been local i have used them a time or two for various bits and found them helpful and as long as you
pick and choose what you use them for decent quality bits/parts too.
It was Robin hood that got me into locosts in the 1st place, i was pondering one till I stumbled across "the book" whilst doing a bit of
research, very active owners club too, they know how too party.
Just found this statement from Robin hood.
"We have been looking at the various comments on our lightweight and the issue of sva
Our lightweight demonstrater was succesfully sva tested prior to official launch of the car,with a car properly approved we started selling the kit.We
have seen a number of Lightweights built and registered all over the world
Our car has been recently striped down for examination and NO PROBLEMS WERE ENCOUNTERED this car has been used on track days,on the road all year and
if you remember used by the press (including a trip to France)
We have just re-tested our own car again (this week) succesfully!
We all know the SVA centres vary enourmously from region to region some things they pass in one station sometimes same fail in others
It apperars the kit car industry suffers from these inconsistancies and interpritations through no fault of their own"
Also this statement re web site........
"The reason for the current website downtime is due to us reaching our download limit.
This is down to the sucess of the new pdf parts brochure we have recieved over 50 megabites worth of downloads. This has resulted in the website being
down. Therefore the pdf will be removed and if you require it please email me subject title parts pdf and we will send one via email.
RHSC"
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Ison
Also this statement re web site........
"The reason for the current website downtime is due to us reaching our download limit.
This is down to the sucess of the new pdf parts brochure we have recieved over 50 megabites worth of downloads. This has resulted in the website being down. Therefore the pdf will be removed and if you require it please email me subject title parts pdf and we will send one via email.
RHSC"
50MB download limit? Are they hosting the website on some free webspace somewhere?
Hmm, something fishy there.
Looking at the hosting packages their provider has (following the link on the "This website has been suspended" page), the cheapest has
2GB/month bandwidth.
Even if it was over their limit, surely they'd just pay for more bandwidth.
Martin.
quote:
Originally posted by iank
Doing a search on rhocar.org finds a quote from "diyer"
"Mu lightweight 2.0l zetec powered hood weighed in at 590kg"
Light compared to a 2b, but not that impressive IMO.
On the local news here in sunny Hull it was reported that Humbrol, the makers of Airfix kits and those little tins of paint for modelers has gone into
liquidation.
Humbrol, I believe, are the parent company of Robin Hood Kit cars.
Is this the end of Robin Hood?
It would be a shame if another manufacturer went
Regards Kipper.
i think the only link between rh and humbrol was the rh md ian rowley ??? used to be md of humbrol, i think thats the link dont think humbrol owned rh
but could be wrong
best regards
marc
I hope you are right Marc, I used to race motor bikes with Ian Rowley and was good friend of his dad.
If you read this Ian, best of luck mate.
i think im right but not sure, treid to find the original press release but failed, sure it said something along the lines of a venture capitalist
group headed by ex humbrol md ian rowley purchased rh
think it was on total kitcar ????
i can assure you humbrol have nothing to do with RH . They might be owned by the same people , but not the same company .
thought i wasnt losing my marbles, so all is ok
best regards
marc
quote:
Originally posted by marc n
i think im right but not sure, treid to find the original press release but failed, sure it said something along the lines of a venture capitalist group headed by ex humbrol md ian rowley purchased rh
think it was on total kitcar ????
glad to hear that, thanks for clearing it up.
Kipper.
Any news on this?
http://community.rhocar.org/index.php?showtopic=12786&st=240
Don't let the RH boys see this, but this is the latest from Lotus:-
"The new Esprit sticks to Lotus's 'performance out of lightweight' ethos. So the chassis is made largely of extruded aluminium,
cold cured and riveted together. The lightweight construction saves weight and boosts rigidity. This time, a convertible version of the supercar will
be produced. The chassis is certainly stiff enough - sources claim its torsional rigidity is three times better than that of Ferrari's F430
Spider. Engineers are so confident, they are currently exploring making the chassis floor thinner in places, to keep the mass down."
Sourced here:-
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/secret_new_car.php?sid=14&page=3
Mike
The main difference will be in the extrusions. The lightweight appeared to be just folded sheet, where as that will have very strong bits and will
probably weigh in excess of 900kgs anyway. Light is often considered ton+ these days. Ferrari's etc weigh 2 ton+
the ferrari is only 1450kg and the racing one which will no doubt become the basis for the challenge stradale version is only 1250kg.
the lotus has a 4.8l v8 so will probably be more like 1100-1200kg min, with all the safety stuff they now must have id be suprised if they can get it
under a ton especially as the elise is now 860kg.
didn't know that lotus were gonna rebadge the gallardo