Yugoslavian Ami.., continuing on from 'now-autoshites-flimsy-bodied Shitroen'

[forddeliveryboy]

It'd need at least a dozen requests for more 2cv insight... and for every one of those, there would still be three laughing all the way to their modern eurobox... note the subtle comment after my post at the top of page 5 on the other thread. 

 

Nowadays, many owners of such stuff don't have them because they're cheap, reliable, tough and beguiling, they have them because they're different/retro/in fashion. You need a fair bit of cash to buy/rebuild/run an A-series, it's not economy motoring any more. People have a 'sensible' car for most journeys, or other 'classics' with more metal. Unless you use or have used one as your sole transport, one which has been in fine order, then it's very difficult to really discover how great they can be, and the subtleties involved in their engineering. Most who once revelled in running a deuche have lost interest in cars, perhaps they have an i30 today. It's this wonderful autoshite crowd who're the true successors to 2cv owners - buying cheaply, mending things themselves, finding hidden delights in mass-made machinery and going into raptures and heated debates over MGFs and CityRovers.  

 

It's also more difficult to use one well on many of England's clogged roads today - too many roundabouts and junctions, too much slowing down and acceleration needed, these machines were intended to maintain a fair lick mile after mile on the open road, not slowing for poor roads or corners. The Super will fair far better in this respect, even if economy will suffer with lots of 3rd@8000rpm.

 

Your comment about seeking a simpler way of life rather than being a 'dolly owner' about sums it up for me. People buy one but rarely use it enough to start to appreciate what made 2cvs truly great cars. Ironic when they pay a price which suggests they're a bit beyond the ordinary, given the numbers remaining and general simplicity/toughness. Despite discovering these cars long after production ended, our Dollywobbler gets these machines, judging from what he writes. For too many, it's just the weird shape of the bodies and fashionability of 70s stuff.

 

Remember that across La Manche, a 2cv was the French Land-Rover. They were both intended for very similar purposes, just that Landies were intended to pull a trailer up a muddy field (farms are smaller in France, livestock went in the back with the rear seat out) and were engineered by rule of thumb rather than the slide rule. And where Citroën had to abandon both a light alloy chassis and body as prices rocketed, Rover/England treated steel as the more valuable material (export and all that) and used left over alloy from the wartime aircraft industry to keep the weather out.

[Bfg]

.

"and for every one of those, there would still be three laughing all the way to their modern eurobox."

 

reminds me..  "Live as if today is your last day,  Dance as if nobody's watching"

 

 

" I'd need at least a dozen requests for more 2cv insight." 

.... well then it's up to READERS  OF  YOUR  (or this)  POST   to  vote  with their  [ Like This  ] button  

[forddeliveryboy]

Well, there's only you and me on this thread anyway, Pete.

 

Lateral thinking hat needed. The best engineering anywhere is Nature. What part of what sort of creature does this remind you of (squint)?

 

[forddeliveryboy]

PS will have to sod off down to my parents at some point soon (when I've chopped some daffs from the garden where swm will not notice), can continue l8rz.

[Bfg]

.

two of us !  ..... 1,150 views.. how many times do you come back here ?

 

..looks like a hefalump's trunk to me

[forddeliveryboy]

Any thoughts? 1100+ views obviously can't be right.

[loserone]

*Votes, eleven times*

 

An arachnid's leg?

[rrsix]

.

two of us !  ..... 1,150 views.. how many times do you come back here ?

 

..looks like a hefalump's trunk to me

Yeah elephants trunk that was definitely what I was thinking as well.....

[forddeliveryboy]

Aye, quite probably. Definitely a tusk.

 

I see it as a cow's horn or elephant tusk, something which is attached to a very strong thing and which can take humungous loads but which is very light indeed, being a hollow skin of compound curves which converge at a point. The pointy end is of almost no weight, the thing as a whole is very light for its strength. The downside for car production is cost, not least the size of the tapered roller bearings which attach them to the huge axle tubes. But simple, tough and an elegant solution to how to mount a wheel and connect it to the suspension. 

 

In an age where cornering g wasn't what it is today, this was a superb solution which allowed loads of articulation, strength and with a minimal mass at the wheel end. Even so, a 2cv still corners well today, if it's somewhere near right. With stiff springs etc and lowered ride height (plus a few tricks), I've set them up round race tracks (about the least likely place a 2cv is going to succeed) and have managed to outgrip Caterhams through corners. The grip a good 2cv and its chassis can develop is extraordinary, as anyone who has ever had a decent one (and who has pushed it beyond what they expect it can do) well knows.

[forddeliveryboy]

The mention of 2cv wheel arms leads me to 2cv Thought No 2. It's quite a few years since I had the horn for them (young family and a lack of time, disillusionment with the sort who now desire them, ridiculous parts prices and abysmal quality), which developed when I was involved with flat four Alfas and old Saabs. 

 

Let's see whether or not this makes any sense to some of you. I return to crashworthiness (trying to send the uninitiated on their way!). Take a modern car and its structure. The bits which need to be strong poke up into a monocoque shell, like the MacPherson strut. Imagine an offset frontal impact, the most typical nasty crash. A lot of crash engineering involves making these suspension parts somehow not get shoved through onto the driver's lap. I've seen too many 205s and other small 80s and 90s stuff with the whole strut and tower where the driver's thighs would have been.

 

Just had a mate call by for a beer,  back in half an hour.

[forddeliveryboy]

So, a modern car has the bits which need to be strongest (suspension struts and towers) has the bits which need to be weakest in a crash. Whereas a 2cv has the bits which take the suspension loadings as part of the crash plan. I usually keep quiet about this sort of thing, since most would put you in the loony bin, trying to suggest not only was a 2cv well engineered but also half crashworthy.

 

When I first drove one, I was blown away by the roadholding. (First car was VAG and the Dyane was a belter). I saw the speedo, the road and thought 'What if I crash?'. Then a truck went the other way into the wind (it was why the speedo was bending round the stop) and it was like a Force 10 at Everest Base Camp, but with a torn flysheet and the possibility of being squashed with no chance of wheelchairs afterwards.

 

Long and short - I've seen many a 2cv and Dyane after a big crash (I iz 2cv-Folksam) and every time the passenger compartment was well-enough preserved to amaze me, apart from a sad case which had been 'restored' by a well-known Northern 2cv specialist. Last one was a car I lent to a friend who had a big coming together with a Polish A8, involving upside-down-ness at illegal speeds. As usual, the worst injury was to the brain - "why am I not dead?", which takes many beers to resolve.

 

Please don't go out there and experiment with 1930s/40s crash design (Cit A-series cars are pretty hard to lose control of going forwards - in fact, there is the real safety - the inability to lose control without trying very hard) but don't think there's only one way to skin a cat, either. 

[forddeliveryboy]

More beer supped. 

 

Did you know the AlfaSud's chief engineer was an Austrian who was partly responsible for the StrengththroughJoy-wagen/Kafer/VWBeetle? Sorry, off-topic. Good beer, though.

 

Strength. The 2cv/Dyane/Mehari/Ami chassis on its own could be stiffer, twisting-wise. Which is why they bolted a body to it, as well as being an umbrella - several huge lateral box sections provide torsional stiffness. Rivets/bathroom sealant/glass fibre don't restore strength, when some bit of the body vanishes. Even the tailpanel box is important - this thing is more mollusc-like than most people realise.

 

Lightweight. Everything's lightweight on one of these, whether a 100mph Ami or a 50mph early 2cv. Even the starting handle doubles as a jack handle, wheelbrace and front wing bolt socket. Cylinder head gaskets would have added more weight than the original 9hp could have managed up the Col d'Iseran, so they just engineered things very accurately. The engineers asked their boss if he'd like them to spend their time making hollow bolts as they grew increasingly frustrated with his demands.

 

Remove a windscreen, ventilation shutter and wiper motor assembly and wonder at how little strength there is left. Roll back the roof or remove a rear seat and feel the extra flex, yet the roof is fabric and the rear seat tubes are tiny. The whole thing's like a bumble bee, science can't explain how it works so well - but get a few things a tiny bit wrong and it fails like nothing you've ever known. I think a music degree would be as much help as an apprenticeship at the local garage when it comes to reasoning with a 2cv or one of its cousins.

[Ghosty]

This is really interesting reading!

[Skizzer]

Well, there's only you and me on this thread anyway, Pete.

We're here, but reading, enjoying and learning, not writing. Keep it up, this is a fantastic thread.

[Asimo]

I've seen many a 2cv and Dyane after a big crash

 

Any excuse to share this picture again.

 

(Cover of 1972 Aphrodites Child album 666)

[Asimo]

Really enjoying all of this discussion. 

These are great cars because someone very clever worked from first principles to make something as good as possible.

That doesn't happen very often. 

 

I concur with that Autocar roadtest about the fuel consumption, high twenties mpg. But you try driving one gently!

I think the Ami Super rear brakes were the same as the Acadienne van but I can't remember why I should believe that. I also have this idea that the Super spring boxes were different such that there is no front / rear interaction but, again, can't remember where I might have got that idea from.

It would make sense I think, to so increase pitch-stiffness with so much more power. The poor road ride was excellant but I have never driven a 2 cylinder car so can't compare.

I had no Idea that Citroens were ever built in Yugoslavia, was that where all Supers were made?

 

Edit - just found this one for sale - are these the later wheels referred too or are they a GS wheel?

http://www.leboncoin.fr/voitures/933184693.htm?ca=13_s

 

Looks like BX chairs can be made to fit.

[jonny69]

Nowadays, many owners of such stuff don't have them because they're cheap, reliable, tough and beguiling, they have them because they're different/retro/in fashion. You need a fair bit of cash to buy/rebuild/run an A-series, it's not economy motoring any more. People have a 'sensible' car for most journeys, or other 'classics' with more metal. Unless you use or have used one as your sole transport, one which has been in fine order, then it's very difficult to really discover how great they can be, and the subtleties involved in their engineering. Most who once revelled in running a deuche have lost interest in cars, perhaps they have an i30 today. It's this wonderful autoshite crowd who're the true successors to 2cv owners - buying cheaply, mending things themselves, finding hidden delights in mass-made machinery and going into raptures and heated debates over MGFs and CityRovers.  

 

Your opinion about economy motoring is interesting, because it's different to mine. The initial cost of the car is now high and the spares prices have been steadily creeping up - as they have with all cars of that age - but consider a couple of other factors:

-No depreciation (may even go up in value).

-Service and maintain yourself.

-Spares are actually still cheaper than for modern cars.

-No tax on the pre '73 cars.

-Cheap insurance ~£150 for mid 30s male fully comp with commuting.

 

Now, I got caught out on mine because I underestimated how much work it was going to need but, as it happens, it owes me about what it's worth bar maybe a couple of hundred quid. The alternative to owning the Ami as a second car was that I was going to look at having a newish sensible/reliable modern alongside my Anglia (basically something zero hassle that will always work) to take the pressure off having to find spares which are getting increasingly hard to find. Now consider those factors:

-Depreciation ~£1000 p/a.

-Self service - impossible - £200 p/a.

-Spares, probably shouldn't need anything.

-Tax £20-£150 depending on the car.

-Insurance £400-450 for mid 30s male fully comp with commuting.

 

At the very minimum it'll cost around £1200 less per year than the alternative I was looking at and to me that's what makes economy motoring. It'll actually do more than the Fiat 500 I was looking at because it's much bigger inside and I'll be able to load it up for tip runs, get bikes in the back etc. I don't even think a 500 would be able to carry as much weight as my Anglia can. I know this is a bit extreme but here's 160kg of sand, 25kg cement and some laminate flooring in the back last weekend which made it a *bit* low. Can't see any reason why the Ami won't be able to do this.

 

 

 

 

I do also realise what this looks like i.e. that I was looking for something zero hassle, zero work and dependable which would always function and instead I've chosen an obscure 1960s Citroen. I can see what's happened.

[forddeliveryboy]

OK, so we've learnt that the suspension bits on these cars is what takes the force if you hit something, first the large wheel, then the suspension arm and then into the hugely strong axles and chassis, underneath, distorting progressively. The body is something to keep the weather off you as well as increase the cars' resistance to bending and twisting - something like a wing panel is just decoration and an aerodynamic aid - hit something hard and front one may be returned to flat sheet steel. 

 

But something surprised me more than the leftovers of various 2cvs which had hit other cars and stuff hard - ones which had rolled over. I would sometimes spend summer days browsing scrapyards and would be amazed at how Jaguars, BMWs and Peugeots would often be seen with the top of an A-post puncturing seat squabs. Driving around in a Dyane at the time, I was concerned what would happen if the thing rolled. I'd been researching how far the car would lean, it seemed to grip harder the more it did but I was convinced it would decapitate me if it did topple.

 

But all the 2cvs and Dyanes which appeared in the scrapyards had been vandalised, or had under-bonnet fires or small prangs which had bent rotting late 80s chassis beyond the point a mechanic could bend it back then weld a flat sheet over the buckled, rotten metal. Then one day, a Dyane appeared which had obviously rolled at quite a lick, everything was bent beyond recognition. Yet the doors opened and the passenger cell was still the same height. This intrigued me - how could something as relatively strong as a Jaguar or BMW collapse in such a deadly way? Years later, I would see 2cvs which had rolled which had kept the passenger area in shape.

 

Anyway, I'm wondering if all this crazy talk has seen off those who just aren't believers in the Tin Snail's remarkable abilities? 

 

Question to ponder on, does anyone know of any other front engine, front drive cars where the tyre pressures are set significantly lower on the front tyres than the rear? And which don't need inflating more at full payloads?

 

[forddeliveryboy]

Interesting fact no. 322

 

The suspension of the seating is almost as long-travel as that of the chassis and is sprung so that it's out of phase with the rest of the car.

 

The leboncoin Super with BX seats will not be as pleasant a ride as with the originals, look for dents in the roof. It looks like it has GS rims, with spacers or GS hub carriers. Yes, the spring boxes are fixed as on the Acadiane (which has a longer wheelbase).

 

Jonny, I'm approaching the whole money thing from an autoshiter's pov. I agree, one can make more financial sense than a newish car which depreciates hard.

[forddeliveryboy]

Interesting fact no. 156

 

Under heavy braking, the whole car can drop on its springs and feel like it's digging into the ground for faster stopping, if the rear brakes are working correctly. More often the case with four drums rather than the later disc/drum setup. 

 

This pic is what happens if the rear brakes aren't working - even though the pic suggests they've locked up. 

 

[forddeliveryboy]

No. 992

 

The wheelbase stretches the more you load up the car - so through corners, the wheeelbase on the outside of the curve is longer than that on the inside. 

 

 

[forddeliveryboy]

 

Question to ponder on, does anyone know of any other front engine, front drive cars where the tyre pressures are set significantly lower on the front tyres than the rear? And which don't need inflating more at full payloads?

 

 

Anyone any thoughts, or know of another car with lower front tyre pressures on fwd/fe?

[forddeliveryboy]

No. 443

 

Extra roll stiffness for the front end can be noticed after you've visited the grease nipples. More strangely still, by using the brakes or even better, by opening the throttle. It's not a marginal effect, either, as shown when you roll up quickly at a junction on a curved bit of road with the car heeling - as you come to a stop, the thing re-orientates itself so the red wine is once again level in the glass and you have to tilt your book back to where it was on the straight bits.

 

The driveshafts are variable length to allow for the massive suspension articulation, split in the middle on a long splined joint with a gaiter over it, filled with grease. There is some resistance to them altering length when static, but applying torque increases this resistance no end. 

 

 

 

 

The roll you see when observing these cars doesn't feel anywhere near as much inside, unless there's something wrong with the thing. Which wasn't uncommon, as the 80s wore on. The cars are set up to go round fast corners at their top speed in complete stability and do so with such ease and composure it surprises you time and again when stepping in from a modern, with its stiff springs and blobs of distorting rubber sandwiched in the suspension designed to make the average driver feel superb (and to help reduce the harshness from the 45-profile tyres).

 

The downside is understeer at low speeds. With a crappy late car, steel quality* is suspect* so suspension arms distort badly when cornering. As QC fell through the floor, they seemed to fit the British cars with all the dud bits, meaning positive camber on the front wheels and rear wheels which would point any which way other than ahead. Not good for cornering. Add all this to inherent slow speed understeer and lots of roundabouts, the results could be hilarious. The more a driver tried to counter the understeer, the more the thing protested by heeling.

 

I've driven some which I Iabelled 'unsuitable for ring roads', they were usually late cars with an aftermarket chassis so flimsy it helped with low speed corners by twisting so much the rear axle started steering round. Thing is, those chassis are so puny that a bootful of shopping made it a bit scary even in the dry, let alone the wet. Yet they're the cheapest, so are bought by the masses. 

 

All this negative talk cannot be good. I'll repeat that when right, they're pretty amazing. I've scythed past traffic on winding wet B roads in a particularly sweet car (think Hawes-Leyburn sort of roads), almost appearing to stretch the laws of physics. Anything modern with good road manners could have kept up in theory but would have been a handful, with standing water (not nice with wide tyres and speed), constantly varying cambers and surfaces as well as lumpy foundations and washboard surfaces. Very low centres of mass help no end, along with an original chassis, MichXs (135f, 125r) and everything set up just so. When working so well, these cars seem to have the ability of a cat to move fast yet with minimal disturbance to its environment and of itself. 

 

We've obviously scared all but MrLPeel off, Pete - no response to my request for suggestions for the odd tyre pressures. I'll come to that later. Pete? Pete! Tsk, off for Slovenia already. I look forward to the collectionfred.

[forddeliveryboy]

Fundamental fillosophy No. 3

 

Wherever possible, use something for at least two or three purposes, in order to save weight and simplify.

 

 

We've already considered the starting handle which doubles as a wheelbrace, jack handle and front wing remover. In fairness, that's not so unusual or particularly clever - many manufacturers have rationalised their wheelbrace/jack handle into one component. But who else uses the jack as part of the strength of the vehicle in a rear end collision - and the spare wheel as a sort of spring for the same? You've just to remember to store it properly, it's tall and thin and acts like an extra box section, held tight in place up against the inside of the tail panel by the spare wheel.

 

We know they used oil as the coolant as well as lubricating fluid. Most* have heard that 2cvs have no fanbelt, distributor, no water pump and no radiator. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=h658d6hWckw). Not carrying around a few litres of water to cool the engine is good - no hoses, thermostat, leaking heater matrix and so on. I like air cooled engines, especially when they're boxer layouts.

 

Having the (huge) fan bolted to the front of the crankshaft meant if the engine turned, so did the fan and so it couldn't overheat - no belts to break. But what few know is how they reduced mass by having the dynamo attached to the crank so that the flywheel's mass could be reduced by the mass of the dynamo, which is quite a lot. That's neat.

 

All this saved weight meant that massive strength and durability came in a super-lightweight package. Losing weight, or 'adding lightness' as Colin Chapman said is the holy grail of engineering - it's a virtuous circle as much as lazy design and lardyness is a viscious one. It probably helped that Citroën's engineers were not only products of both designing and racing Grand Prix cars as well as designing and racing aeroplanes (and winning in both).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=43AgBuh9ot8#t=286

[Bfg]

" Pete? Pete! Tsk, off for Slovenia already. I"  Off on Sunday, at some unearthly hour in the morning, so just 4 days to get ready..  And lots to do before then..  So I've slapped myself into not spending half the day reading or replying to this ere' superb forum. 

 

Bottom line is that I need more time than I presently have to read through and glean..  &/or to enter into conversation. 

 

Keep it up

 

"The wheelbase stretches the more you load up the car - so through corners, the wheeelbase on the outside of the curve is longer than that on the inside."   ... and so ??

 

p.s. 'adding lightness' ...was it Chapman or his cohort Frank Costin who said that ?

 

 

[forddeliveryboy]

Will you be beaming back progress to us Autoshiters? Hope so.

 

 

[Asimo]

The tyre pressures.

It's the same situation as a fwd van I think, the potential weight on the rear wheels is ultimately higher than on the fronts. For the Citroens, unlike most cars, this would be because the weight of the powertrain is low compared to the weight of meat on the back seat.

Citroen didn't have to fudge the issue by telling the user to increase rear pressures for a full load because the suspension is compliant enough for no ride quality improvement to be had by having rear pressures as low as possible for the weight. Which is why most cars have lower pressures on the rears: to mitigate harshness.

[forddeliveryboy]

The tyre pressures.

It's the same situation as a fwd van I think, the potential weight on the rear wheels is ultimately higher than on the fronts. For the Citroens, unlike most cars, this would be because the weight of the powertrain is low compared to the weight of meat on the back seat. 

Citroen didn't have to fudge the issue by telling the user to increase rear pressures for a full load because the suspension is compliant enough for no ride quality improvement to be had by having rear pressures as low as possible for the weight. Which is why most cars have lower pressures on the rears: to mitigate harshness. 

 

 

 

I agree, but wouldn't you expect the rears to wear prematurely when used unladen, most of the time? They don't. Like the back of a 2cv is featherweight - if it wasn't for the suction suspension, one man would be able to lift it with the back bumper. Given how far back the rear axle is, the load increases on the front axle a good bit when passengers are onboard - the relative light weight of the car to a load would mean you'd expect 20 to be way out for fully laden if you assume it's optimised for unladen.

 

I tried all sorts of pressure variations and nothing worked better than 20/26. (Well, perhaps 21/26). 20 or 22 or 24 on the back resulted in poor cornering. 30 or more and it was jittery on poorer surfaces and didn't grip as well cornering even on the smoothest slip road. It was the same with the fronts - any lower was useless, as was any more than 22/3. If the 20/26 was ideal for fully laden and so a compromise for unladen, you'd expect there to be a better result unladen with different pressures. 

 

Altering the pressures at a full load makes things worse, too. It's all very odd.

 

More tyre talk - I tried 135XZXs all round, the front end grip improved nicely but the back would suddenly oversteer in extremis, something it'd never usually do. So 135 front, 125 rear. 

[forddeliveryboy]

I'll try and gather my thoughts for how I once worked out what I thought was going on. This will take much concentration and attempts to drag old thoughts from the very back of the mind, unused for years! Will head off and buy some beer or wine, it can help. Until it doesn't.

 

Few other things to do, so maybe tomozzow. 

[Asimo]

Aaah so maybe the lower front pressure is to increase understeer a bit, until oversteer cannot become an issue. It is all in the balance............

 

Not sure what you mean by premature wear of the rears when unladen? Wear is pretty much proportional to weight unless there is some geometry / scrub issue which there shouldn't be on one of these.

Are you refering to those under / normal / over inflation pictures that used to be in the highway code, you know where only the centre of the tyre wears if over inflated?

That really only refers to crossply tires, the tread of a radial is held flat by the circumferential belt and Citroens are never on crossplys!  crossplies.

 

Edit - Ta JM.