Chassis History Archive Project

[allenbrown]

Wish I could John! Maybe Chris will have news.

[Bryan Miller]

John,

Now that it has re-appeared , the Brabham BT18 thread looks like a starter for re-direction.

Bryan.

[John Turner]

Telepathy, and a consensus ad idem, Bryan! I've just moved it here BEFORE reading your above post!

[John Turner]

Right, at long last I've picked up on Dan's, Bryan's and Allen's hints and sorted (hopefully!) the Chevron B48 thread!

[allenbrown]

John

Could we move the Lotus 69 thread in please? There's not much in there yet but it can at least be a basis for future research.

Thanks

Allen

[John Turner]

No probs, thought you'd never ask!

[John Turner]

I wonder whether we should in fact call it Lotus 59 & 69?

[allenbrown]

I wouldn't. The 59s are a much bigger and far uglier subject.

[John Turner]

Ok, spoilsport, but a thread on 59s would be good, too. I could then post my faded 1970 picture of Dave Walker's Gold Leaf 59 in the paddock at Thruxton.

What about Tecnos, or are we treading on some elses toes if we do them? They always looked a bit different!

And, .... what about these Lenham spyders that have recently appeared in historics. There were 2 at Brands the weekend before last. What do we know about them. Can't have been many built, can there?

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Ok, spoilsport, but a thread on 59s would be good, too. I could then post my faded 1970 picture of Dave Walker's Gold Leaf 59 in the paddock at Thruxton.

What about Tecnos, or are we treading on some elses toes if we do them? They always looked a bit different!

And, .... what about these Lenham spyders that have recently appeared in historics. There were 2 at Brands the weekend before last. What do we know about them. Can't have been many built, can there?

Calm Down, it's only a suggestion!

[John Turner]

I am perfectly calm; and I'm offering some further suggestions, to which you have not responded Steve!

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by John Turner

I am perfectly calm; and I'm offering some further suggestions, to which you have not responded Steve!

Sorry headmaster, I'll slink off now and have a ponder!

[John Turner]

That's the second time you've called me headmaster; I'll be getting a complex! No slinking allowed in the corridors, but pondering is fine if it brings forth results!

[John Turner]

I see that Chris Townsend has reopened the Lotus 59 & 69 debate, and there seems to be a similar concern over March 783 & 793. I await the deliberations of the experts in due course!

[allenbrown]

Chris has overruled us! Lotus 59 + 69 it is.

[John Turner]

Ok, I'll alter it. We can always split it later. However, I have to say that, on reading his post, Chris makes a good case. It seems to me that with some of these cars the specs were subject to continuous development and that the manufacturers merely allocated new type numbers each year to convey the updating (imagined or otherwise) to the customers.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Ok, I'll alter it. We can always split it later. However, I have to say that, on reading his post, Chris makes a good case. It seems to me that with some of these cars the specs were subject to continuous development and that the manufacturers merely allocated new type numbers each year to convey the updating (imagined or otherwise) to the customers.

It's called marketing!

[John Turner]

Oh, silly me, and I thought it was intended to confuse future historians!

[John Turner]

I see that the Merlyn Mk21 thread continues in the main forum. I think I have left it alone because initially the new posts appeared to be about a specific Mk 21 chassis. However, as the posts continue, I wonder whether I should be adding them to our chassis archive thread and shutting down the one in the main forum. Any views?

[John Turner]

Folks, I'm away for a few days, so don't worry about me not responding to any thread amendment requests or additions. I'll do them when I return. I will also start to review where we are with this project. Personally, (and I would say this wouldn't I?) I think it has developed extremely well since inception nearly 6 months ago. I have two areas that I would like to look at:-

1) The need to make posts understandable to researchers (you guys) and laymen (like me!). I'm concerned at the use of abbreviations, textspeak, nicknames, lack of punctuation etc. If, as I believe we all agree on, that as well as being fun, it is also a serious research tool, we need to bear this in mind. So, I will shortly go into 'review' mode on all the threads and edit wherever I feel the reader might struggle to easily grasp the information. I won't alter meanings or words, and I hope no-one will take offence; it's certainly not intended, and in any event you can always PM if you feel that I have overstepped the mark or unwittingly changed the meaning!
2) Increase the number of threads, particularly on sports cars, and encourage more modern machinery, in order that future historians don't have quite the same degree of difficulty untangling them that you guys have with the older cars!

Sorry, I do really sound like the headmaster, don't I?

[Anuauto]

What is the general view on including saloon cars in the Chassis Archive? A lot of work has gone into the Rover Vitesse thread but it doesn't have "chassis numbers" (what in UK is now called a VIN plate). There was quite a bit of interest in a Lotus Cortina thread on this forum (and in another place). I have some data on "Works" race and rally Cortinas but it largely must consist of what reg no was carried on what event. Particularly in the case of rally cars, we know they were re-shelled but retained the same identity. Clearly there is no point covering models where "works" books already exist - Minis, Escorts etc.

[allenbrown]

There is no need for a car to have a chassis number to be in the archive as long as there's a way to distinguish the cars. A lot of US-built single seaters weren't allocated chassis numbers so they can either be given artificial retrospective numbers (like the South African LDS F1 cars were) or just use the first owner's name, as was done for some of the Millers Indy 500 cars.

So 'the Pugh car', 'the McGrew car', 'the Cuthbert car' and so on are perfectly acceptable ways of working.

Allen

[John Turner]

Yep, absolutely no problems with saloons. In fact we have threads in here for both the SD1 Rover Vitesse and the BMW 635CSi already. As Allen says, where no chassis number exists, as long as we can identify the individual cars by some other means, that is fine. Cortinas would be great!

Whilst I take your point about cars with books already produced about them, even this isn't off limits because, they are not always entirely correct and also do have some gaps. So the archive can be used to challenge perceived wisdom (with proof) or to fill gaps in the knowledge.

[John Turner]

Those of you wondering where the Capri and Cortina threads have gone, they are still here! I've simply retitled them to maintain the consistent format for this forum - marque name first!

[Leighton Irwin]

The Cdn. Motorsport Hall of Fame Archives are going to be open to the public on the next 2 weekends. See www.motorsportscentral.com for more information. For those trying to track race results etc. this might help if you can get someone to attend. Sorry, I cannot attend as we are open on weekends for ice fishermen (assuming we get safe ice). Hog and Sturgeon Bay just froze on Sat. (about a month late) and I wouldn't trust the ice yet despite -15C temp today. We need at least a week of those temp. for the ice to be safe and you do not have to go far out to find open water.
Maybe Bob or Brett Harrington or John Lindsay might be able to attend.