Woodgates rough 2_20171028_0001.jpg - Bild entfernt (keine Rechte)

That's interesting. As you know, older Eribas don't have the tubular sealing portion on the U shaped trim. It's just the U shape that's used as a buffer between the pop top and the roof.

I wonder if the shallower profile of the new shape roof necessitates a seal?

Randa

Quote: Frantone wrote in post #1

---

BUT which way round should it be?

---

What I'm suggesting, Colin, is that there seem to be quite a lot of parts which don't quite do the job that they should quite as well as they might because they aren't purpose-designed for that specific application in Eribas.

I understand absolutely why that's the case, and I understand absolutely what you say about a 'bought in best fit option'. I didn't say it was cutting corners.

The thing is, a bought-in best-fit option chosen for reasons of economy isn't always the optimum solution.

That seal is one example. The extra lip, which presumably performs some intended function in the fitting it was actually designed for, is neither necessary nor helpful in the context of a pop-top seal on an Eriba.

The top locker hinges is another example. The hinges which necessitated the 'factory-approved' modification to prevent the locker carcases splitting. Those hinges are not the correct part for that particular application. If they were, nobody's locker carcase would have split, and the retrofit of the metal reinforcing strip wouldn't have been necessary.

I don't know, but I can only assume that the articulated hinges used previously (and which were precisely the right part for that application) either became difficult to source or a decision was made to replace them with inferior hinges on cost grounds.

And for every across-the-industry (or off-the-shelf) ancillary on a modern car there is another part which is particular to that model only and which requires a production run of its own by the part supplier. A production run which is only viable because of economies of scale.

That's much more prevalent now than it was thirty years ago because of advances in design and manufacturing technology and the use of new materials.

Thirty or forty years ago most cars had the same round Lucas headlights. These days I doubt you'd find any two cars which use the same headlight design.

.

Zitat

---

Quote Pepe Le Pew :- What I'm suggesting, Colin, is that there seem to be quite a lot of parts which don't quite do the job that they should quite as well as they might because they aren't purpose-designed for that specific application in Eribas.

---

Totally agree with this point. It's the only way to go if you're working to a tight budget. Tooling costs for bespoke parts is an enormous consideration.

This brings me back to my earlier question? Do you think that Hymer didn't have a satisfactory "road test" with the new profile roof so had to find something that they felt would act as a seal between pop top and roof? Am I correct in thinking that some newer vans experience a weakness in the roof hold down toggles and could this weakness be caused by the extra resistance the new "seal" gives? Don't the newer vans have tightening screws on the toggles?

If so then Hymer have been forced to alter the toggle design and absorb the extra costs for tooling, stocking etc to overcome an original design weakness. Only a guess as I don't know enough about the new shape vans.

Randa

Yes, those are my feelings too.

Randa

Would we dare to say that the introduction of the new, flatter roof profile to increase the door height, is a design too far? I know I'm biased, but I do prefer the look of the old curved roof.

Randa