Looking at a Renault Modus in the supermarket car park yesterday, I noticed that the wipers operate from the centre of the screen outwards so there isn't an unswept area left on one side or the other, usually the passenger's.
It seems so logical I can't see why it isn't universally adopted. The mechanics can't be all that more complex can they?
So is there something I'm missing?
|
|
The wipers on a Zafira I was sat in this week did not seem to clear the screen as well as I'd like. So maybe not the solution that satisfies everyone.
|
Wraparound wipers are also quite expensive.
The wipers cannot go at the same speed, or else they would cross over and clash in the middle of the screen.
An extra "accelerator" mechanism** is needed to move the upper blade up the screen quickly to allow some clearance for the lower blade.
** Or, even more profligately, a two motor system, where each motor is controlled relatively to prevent clashes!
|
Or, even more profligately, a two motor system, where each motor is controlled relatively to prevent clashes!
Like the Altea. Superb wipers, park in the A posts and wipe from A post to scuttle on both sides They are the finest wipers I have ever had on any car.
|
|
|
|
You're right, logically they offer a neat solution, however, several reasons come into play, cost, design preference, appearance, driver distraction etc.
A similar wiper system was used for 1954 Morris Oxfords except their wiper blades weren't so long and left an unwiped area in the center of the screen.
Remember the days when Euro cars were produced for left hand drive cars and with left wiper bias, when sold in the UK with right hand drive the wipers were still set as the default for left hand drive cars.
Even today the Ford Focus II has the hand brake positioned for the left hand drive version.
Extra production costs have a lot to do with such compromises.
|
|
|
Sometimes this is an excuse for penny-pinching. To avoid clashing, some cars with clap-hands wipers have one blade shorter than the other. I had a Mercedes B-class where nothing had been changed from LHD and not only was the driver's wiper the shorter one, it was also the lower one when parked and left a wide unwiped gap at the A-pillar.
I agree with AE about the Altea. SEAT could have taught Mercedes a lesson; I haven't seen a facelifted B-class yet so they may have learnt it.
|
|
|
This solution is probably more to do with production costs. Having the wiper blades sweep from the centre up to the windscreen pillars is just a different way of producing cars for both left hand drive and right hand drive without the need to change the wiper pattern. It is not particularly new - the VW Sharan/Seat Alhambra/Ford Galaxy had a similar set up. The Seat Altea also does - but the blades on that park against the windscreen pillars.
There are still some quite recent cars where the manufacturers couldn't be bothered to change the wiper pattern for the UK market.
Peugeot sold the 206 in the UK with the wipers set up for left hand drive, as did Renault with the last Scenic.
|
There are still some quite recent cars where the manufacturers couldn't be bothered to change the wiper pattern for the UK market.
Isn't BMW 5 series one of them?
|
E-type Jags have three wiper blades - maybe that works well for narrow, letterbox-shaped screens.
Some commercials used to have wipers hung from the top edge of the screen.
Some Mercs had a single, central wiper with a pantograph mechanism which sort of threw the blade into the top corners of the screen.
The CC3 has different length wiper blades.
They are the 'one piece' type and the best I've had so far.
|
>>Some Mercs had a single, central wiper with a pantograph mechanism which sort of threw the blade into the top corners of the screen.>>
Always used to fascinate me watching this particular wiping action.
My VW Bora (and I presume MK!V Golfs as well) has blades of two different lengths, with the driver's side blade featuring a spoiler.
|
NC mentions a two motor system which I'd thought about. He describes it as "profligate" (in the manufacturer's terms, I guess) but put that in the context of a car with a motor to operate every window and one to open and close the sunroof.
Ifithelps mentions the E-type with three wiper blades. I think that was because the screen sort of bends round to the pillars (doesn't it?) as well as being letter box in shape.
There was mention of a 1954 Morris Oxford which I recall as being bulbous in shape with a one piece screen. But that made me think of the old Morris Minor which had, IIRC, a two piece screen. Did that wipe centre outwards?
|
Yes, definitely profligate. Don't forget that the customer pays for the manufacturer's profligacy plus a mark up!
The system is far more expensive than it sounds, because the two motors need to be controlled relative to each other - so, thats 2 motors, plus encoders, and a controller where one motor some linkages and simple switching is all that's needed.
Morris Minors while fitted with a split screen did have wipers which wiped from the centre. Obviously, they could never clash, and were driven by a common flexible rack - the pinions being formed on the lower end of the wiper spindles. These left a large unwiped area in the centre of the screen which would be completely unacceptable today. The wiper layout was kept for a while even after the split screen had been replaced with a one piece screen. I suspect the wiper layout on Minors was finally made conventional with the introduction of the Morris 1000.
Leylands and AECs with Ergomatic cabs are the last obvious HGVs with wipers which parked at the top of the screen.
|
Land Rovers had two wipers which - I think - each wiped a separate 180 degree arc.
Separate motors, bolted to the inside of the screen, and a simple lever arrangement which allowed manual operation of the wiper from the inside.
And if it was really wet - fold the screen flat on the bonnet. :)
|
I had a split screen Series II once. The two wipers of course were completely unconnected, so went at slightly different speeds, which was a bit disconcerting. You start counting the number of sweeps before they once more regain sync and beat together, briefly.
But usually I didn't bother reaching across to turn on the passenger side wiper.
My old Triumph Roadster had 3 wipers which could be switched in independently. But the other 2 locked into the master spindle in front of the driver, so if running, all 3 moved together.
Like the LandRover's, they could be manually parked on rests below the windscreen.
|
|
|
|
Some Mercs had a single central wiper with a pantograph mechanism which sort of threw the blade into the top corners of the screen.
Yes, it was very clever, wasn't it.
Of course the Citroen BX also had a single wiper but without the fancy pantograph.
|
|
|
|
|
I feel slightly diffident at challenging Number Cruncher, but the Minor 1000 (introduced 1956) brought both the 948 cc engine and the one-piece screen. The split-screen wiper patternm, with the large unwiped area in the middle, persisted till about 1963-64.
Taller windscreens made it easier to cover a larger area with the wipers. Most 50s cars had them parking horizontally in front of the driver, but gradually in the 60s they changed to parking in front of the passenger and moving to a vertical position in front of the driver (which is the ideal).
All except the dear old Morris Marina which first had them the ideal way, then changed to parking in front of the driver with the unwiped bit right in the line of a tall driver's vision. The crowning glory of this I saw on a transporter in the 70s - LHD Marinas going for export (someone must have wanted them....) with the wipers carefully altered to be wrong for LHD. Only BL could have manged that.
Edit - I meant to type 'managed' in the last line - but I think I might leave it as it is!)
Edited by Avant on 05/09/2009 at 22:23
|
>>I feel slightly diffident at challenging Number Cruncher
Thanks for the clarification.
>>persisted till about 1963-64.
Yes, that sounds about right - I wonder what triggered the change to a conventional wiper layout? IIRC, it was about this time that some moggies also had an oil filter blockage warning light fitted, but, it was soon deleted.
|
Possibly a decision to keep making the Minor (as it was still selling well, particularly to conservative types who didn't trust FWD) and therefore to give it a bit of a facelift.
The conservative types had a point - early Minis and 1100s gave quite a lot of trouble. I always thought that having engine and gearbox share the same oil wa asking for trouble: this came up here some time ago and someone told us that Issigonis never wanted this - it was a penny-pinching measure by management.
I know people who had successions of Minor Travellers through this period: this and the Austin A40 Countryman were very good reliable cars. FWD has its advantages - but it was a pity that a lot of the development work ended up being done by buyers.
Edited by Avant on 05/09/2009 at 23:39
|
>>Minor Travellers
I have a completely irrational soft spot for travellers. Replacing the rotten wood and getting the replacemetn wood and metalwork all to look right afterwards is one of those jobs which just can't be rushed, BUT, when you get it right, it's so rewarding!
It's one of the rare jobs on cars where some degree of "settling" does actually take place, and the large cross head screws on the door pillar do take up a bit even weeks after a nerw wood side has been fitted.
>>I always thought that having engine and gearbox share the same oil wa asking for trouble
Yes, it's undoubtedly a compromise, and for these gearbox in sump cars the rather schizophrenic oil specification was necessary - even then, the magnetic drain plug usually had plenty of fragments of gear teeth on it at every oil change.
I am still surprised that the gearbox in sump design didn't use much wider gear facewidths, this would have reduced contact loads and would perhaps had reduced the failing of the comromise a bit when used without an extreme pressure gear oil.
|
Saw a white Minor Traveller the other day which looked to be in daily use.
Exhaust note is distinct, buzzy, almost strangled.
And anyone remember the tiny tailpipe? I think my central heating uses a larger bore.
An aunty of mine had a couple of Mini Travellers, red looked particularly smart against the wood.
|
BL had bad wipers for decades (Triumphs, Jags, the Rover P6 and the Marina and Allegro were probably the worst examples) but surely the last word in windscreen wiper lunacy has to be from the Renault Alpine:
tinyurl.com/nmot23
The idea of parking wipers at opposite sides of the screen so that during operation they crash into each other in the middle (one has a slight overlap and shoves the other one down a little before thwacking back) - I mean, WHAT was going through the designer's mind? (Absinthe at the very least...)
|
|
|
|
All except the dear old Morris Marina which first had them the ideal way then changed to parking in front of the driver with the unwiped bit right in the line of a tall driver's vision.
Ah yes... I seem to remember my dad being puzzled by the "LHD" wiper configuration of his L-reg Marina Coupe. Why on earth did they do that?
|
"Ah yes... I seem to remember my dad being puzzled by the "LHD" wiper configuration of his L-reg Marina Coupe. Why on earth did they do that?"
I remember reading a press release from BL GHQ sometime in the late 70s, published by Autocar or Motor, and the excuse given for putting the wipers the wrong way round on nearly every single BMC/BL car for about 25 years (Austin A35 to Morris Ital) was... to prevent wipers lifting off at high speed during rain. Quite why anyone would want to attempt a high speed drive in the rain in a Marina coupe - even on a quiet stretch of road without any nasty bends - is anyone's guess, but things were more or less sorted out by the time the Princess came on the scene. IIRC both the Stag and TR7 had a nice set-up with a pantograph arm.
|
|
|
|
|
