On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Russell McMahon wrote:

> > :: Supposedly they did a bit of research (rather than paint them
> > :: different colours
> > :: or add fins) to find the reason for low sales, and thus re-
> > :: engineered the doors
> > :: to go *thud* rather than *ting* by adding a few braces here &
> > :: there.  Sales went
> > :: up, they were no longer 'jap crap'.  Hear the quality!
> 
> > Actually DWtv's motoring program had a visit to the Audi workshop in
> > Germany where there is a department consisting of 3 people whose job
> > it is to make sure the top of the range vehicles not only have no
> > squeaks or noise, but that things like doors internal and external
> > shut correctly and with the correctly specified clunk or klunk.
> 
> It was "well known" in my youth that to shut the door on a VW Beetle you HAD
> to 1st open a window ever so slightly. Without this the car was too airtight
> and the doors would "bounce" when slammed.
> 
> The same issue occurs with truly waterproof flashlights with lenses that
> push on over a seal and compress air inside as they do so. (Ask me how I
> know :-) ). If the seal is correct and you close off other orificies first
> then it is approximately impossible to fit the lens due to the "air spring"
> effect.
> 
> Maybe you can turn a car door ping into a chunk more cheaply in that way?
> 

I saw a documentry many years ago part of which described how they made a 
car door sound reassuringly solid: they added a thick piece of felt to the 
inside of the door. It made a huge difference.

A few years later I was in a nissan micra and the door would shut with a 
very tinny sound. It did make me feel much less secure than normal, as if 
the door was very thin and would not protect me in the case of an accident 
(even though I knew it was all about the missing felt).

Regards
Sergio Masci
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist