| Re: Thameslink Rolling Stock |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: uk.transport.london · Group Profile
Author: Andrew Robert BreenAndrew Robert Breen Date: Jul 17, 2008 11:47
>azb@ aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying:
> >>>Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque
>>>construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars
>
>> Hmmm..
>>
>> 1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.
>>
>> 2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.
>>
>Small problem there... The X308 steel predecessor to the X350 ally XJ was
>about 200kg heavier than the X350.
>
>After the "Series" XJs, which would have steadily put on weight from the
>s1 you quote above, the late '80s/early '90s XJ40 was north of 1800kg.
Sure - but the XJ40 had most of the crash-resistance measures in place.
The OP's position was that crash protection couldn't add that much
weight..
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
| 
