Talk:Reliant Robin

message: Is it a car or is a tricycle as far as taxation goes? I haven't the foggiest so I came here, however the history seems to suggest both sides of the coin. I think a reference is needed to back up the argument. --Philip Corner 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's classified the same as a motorcycle and sidecar (a "combination", or "outfit" in British parlance).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.254.222 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The categories it could have fallen into has changed over the years regarding licenses, I presume the same is with the vehicle classification. Pleasetry (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: From the video, I count 6 of the Ceseroni engines in just the "external fuel tank" part of the space robin.  There were also engines in the strap-on boosters and in the car itself.  Each engine had about 1800 lbs of thrust.  DonPMitchell (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Robin 

message: "In the United Kingdom the Reliant Robin is sometimes affectionately nicknamed the "Plastic Pig" because of its distinctive shape and fibreglass body shell also because the cars were built in Tamworth." Annnddd so? I don't get the reference. Are there a lot of pigs in Tamworth? - Guest  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really relevant to the car, but there is a breed of pigs known as Tamworth pigs, presumably also bred in Tamworth. That's probably what was being referred to. Madgenberyl (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tamworths are a fairly well known breed (heck, the only one that I could name apart from yer Vietnamese pot-bellied ones). I've even - not by choice - ended up with a set of tea/coffee/sugar jars. The coffee pot features a cow... the sugar a sheep... and the tea a... pig. With tamworth patterning :) So couldn't that little factoid be re-added and kept? It's not like even the name itself could be that easily referenced. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Among British motorcycle couriers the Honda CX500 was also known as the "Plastic Pig" so I think the "plastic" part is more relevant than Tamworth. Mr Larrington (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamworth 

message: Wasn't this car also the butt of many jokes in the television series Mr Bean, in which he could crash in to it and cause it to roll over? Can anyone confirm this or provide more information?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.251.29 (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other occurences in popular culture 

message: I saw the episodes in question, the letter as read, bet that the Stig could drive the Robin with out tipping, rather than saying it couldn't be driven at speed. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Gear

message: The primary cause of the Robin being rollover prone, even compared to most three wheeled cars was due to the fact that it had the engine and other heavy items up towards the front, meaning that all that weight got flung around  in a turn and overturned the car. Other three wheeled designs that use a single front wheel tend to have a rear engine, see Scammel Scarab and Townsman, mazda three wheeled trucks, and more. All of those used a rear engine and were much more stable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.108.52 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instability 

message: While the editor who set the tag does not state a specific cleanup reason, the article appears heavily focussed toward the "popular culture" section instead of a more encyclopaedic tone focussing on facts about the vehicle.
In my opinion it would be unnecessary to remove any of the popular culture section, as the car does hold a prominent place in British culture, the balance simply needs redressing by the sourcing of more vehicle-related information. A bit of grammar cleanup would also be beneficial.
I have started this process by updating the Infobox to the current Wiki template and have moved the note under "production" (date-related) about Greece to "assembly" (location-related), as it seems to fit well there. Baldy Bill (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 Cleanup tag 

message: The last line of the initial section currently states: "Despite the car's reputation for being unstable, a 2011 survey reported that Reliant Robin owners were statistically Britain's safest drivers." The fact that drivers of Robins are statistically safe drivers does not actually imply the inherent safety of the vehicle. On the contrary, the article seems to imply that the drivers of this vehicle simply learn how to handle it safely, and that 'They aren't unstable in corners if you don't take stupid risks or do what Jeremy Clarkson did and roll it over on a sharp bend'(Daily Mail article, 6/13/2011). In other words, the drivers are simply more safe because they know how to handle this vehicle (and they take the time to learn), not because the vehicle itself is inherently safer or more stable. I'm not really sure about this one, but I'd suggest we change it to "While the car has a reputation for being inherently unstable, a 2011 survey actually reported that the specific handling of the car lead many of its drivers to be incredibly safe drivers", or something a little less repetitive. Of course, I could just be reading this wrongly. 64.134.101.99 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety statement 

message: Can someone clarify the law a bit as trikes with a cc under 850 and designed for single use only (cannot carry a pillion or passengers) it appears on DVLA that you can ride one on a "L" plate  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.222.123 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Use 

message: Nothing in this section is cited, and apparently it's been that way since March at the very least. Original research or not, it should either be tagged with sources or removed entirely. 73.170.250.204 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason I landed on your comment and find I agree with you.    I removed the offending para.  (You could have removed it yourself, though such actions do somehow carry more credibility if you get yourself a wiki-identity first:  it's not THAT difficult, and you've already done the more difficult - and most important - bit which is thinking about it.)  Success Charles01 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfounded Myths