Reliant Robin Question

physichull · 9 Nov 2011 at 16:32

An odd topic here but, why didn't the designers of the Reliant Robin decide to put the two wheels at the front instead of the rear?

This surely would be better for stability, but in doing so would mean possibly less weight to put in the back? Or was it that they had a real wheel drive design and thought they could do away with a front wheel?

I apologise in advance for this thread but I am intrigued.

Muffin` · 9 Nov 2011 at 16:34

probably to offer more practical space in the back

Liverpool-Lad · 9 Nov 2011 at 16:41

'Despite its size, by being a three-wheeler with an official mass below 450 kg (992 lb), the Robin can be driven by holders of a B1 category driving licence[2] in the United Kingdom, and registered and taxed at motorcycle rates, which gives a saving of 55 GBP per year over a conventional car.'

Praps it was to do with that (from wikipedia)

physichull · 9 Nov 2011 at 16:44

Yeah thats the reason why they went for 3 wheels, but why not put them at the front to increase stability?

andicole0 · 9 Nov 2011 at 16:50

IIRC it has something to do with the early designs of the Bond Minicar 3-wheeler having a wheel mounted engine that was turned to do the steering. The Reliant Robin is an evolution from that.

Andi.

Liverpool-Lad · 9 Nov 2011 at 16:51

Sorry, misread your question. Probably to be the butt of our jokes

Firestar_3x · 9 Nov 2011 at 16:57

They did it because the boss of Reliant realised Only Fools & Horses wouldn't have been the same without this comedy vehicle.

physichull · 9 Nov 2011 at 17:00

andicole0 said:
IIRC it has something to do with the early designs of the Bond Minicar 3-wheeler having a wheel mounted engine that was turned to do the steering. The Reliant Robin is an evolution from that.

Andi.

But, as far as I am aware, the Reliant Robin had a rear wheel drive assesmbly, like any other car of its time, but they just decided to lob a front wheel off. Maybe it was just as simple thinking as that.

atpbx · 9 Nov 2011 at 17:33

Cost I imagine.

Dogbreath · 9 Nov 2011 at 17:58

physichull said:
But, as far as I am aware, the Reliant Robin had a rear wheel drive assesmbly, like any other car of its time, but they just decided to lob a front wheel off. Maybe it was just as simple thinking as that.

I suspect this is the correct answer. A configuration with two wheels at the front would have required either a FWD configuration with a transaxle, or one driven rear wheel which would have required specially designed rear suspension and final drive to accommodate.

Since they also made a RWD 4 wheeled car (the 'Kitten'), the chosen conventional transmission and rear axle could fit either configuration.

OTOH if Reliant had managed to make the Robin stable then we would never have had one of the funniest Top Gear episodes ever

Howard · 9 Nov 2011 at 19:06

Firestar_3x said:
They did it because the boss of Reliant realised Only Fools & Horses wouldn't have been the same without this comedy vehicle.

Wouldn't have mattered, because they didn't have a Reliant Robin in OFAH

wesley · 9 Nov 2011 at 19:17

Q: What do you call a Robin with two exhaust pipes?

A: A wheelbarrow

ins0mn1ac · 9 Nov 2011 at 19:25

OFAH car was a Regal, not Robin.

andicole0 · 9 Nov 2011 at 20:19

physichull said:
But, as far as I am aware, the Reliant Robin had a rear wheel drive assesmbly, like any other car of its time, but they just decided to lob a front wheel off. Maybe it was just as simple thinking as that.

It did but Reliant and Bond merged some time before so the single front wheel idea came from Bond.

Andi.