| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2159 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2019 : 17:16:32
|
George, the point is not so much on listing but annotating. Listings however could be more informative irrespective of whatever work and views may have happened I the past by committee members. Future generations will never be able to easily recognise what is what.
For example shown on page 68 of the yearbook, should Michael Barbers splendid 'Q' simply be described as a PB, Freds 'C' type simply as a J2 or Roger Tushingham's 'K3' simply as an NA.
If the Committee have fixed inflexible views then that's fine but I personally think there are far better and informative ways of describing these cars.
There are often better ways to do things.
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
 |
|
|
powerplus
United Kingdom
599 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 18:37:13
|
“ A sign of a good organisation is its ability to consider change” . QED.
Powerplus
|
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 19:24:43
|
Right then gents - please make your suggestions where they can be reasonably considered, discussed and a consensus reached. Debate on social media is hardly ever representative or balanced. But, have a think & remember that you have to consider descriptions for
every possible instance in a way that can be applied to any MMM without offending anyone from purists, to radical thinkers. |
Edited by - JMH on 09/06/2019 19:28:40 |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2159 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 19:54:17
|
Sounds good, I will give it some further thought. Hopefully others will provide some useful suggestions.
In the meantime, here is a ponderer, if Cecil Kimber reamerged and we gave him a yearbook full of pictures although without annotation and no access to the Register, I suspect he would have a 35%+ rate of error in correctly identifying the cars. Then given the Yearbook's annotations, one suspects he would be left baffled !!
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1045 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 21:19:44
|
I think Kim would be baffled that we would be messing around with this old sh#t and not buying/ competing/ tinkering new cars ;)
The works where the ones who started messing around swapping chassis, bodies and engines left and right
Onno "D" Könemann |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
2010 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 21:40:45
|
Richard.
Firstly, I think Cecil Kimber would be delighted to see so many of ‘his’ cars still being appreciated, loved and used to good effect after so many years!
Secondly, many thanks for raising what appears to some as a ‘thorny’ issue but in reality is one which really does require proper attention and ‘sorting out’ once and for all.
I welcome Jeremy’s comments and invitation for our views and trust that this is a genuine gesture on behalf of the Committee to address this subject which is clearly a recurring problem at least to a good number of the membership.
For what it is worth, my vote and support is for Alan’s idea which is encompassed in the description thus :- J1/J4 remodel.
Regards to all,
Chris
|
|
|
|
powerplus
United Kingdom
599 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2019 : 23:54:49
|
Jeremy,
In my post dated 8th June, I set out a suggestion for a meaningful short form description for Triple-M cars which had been rebuilt to a specification differing from their original form, in response to an issue raised by Richard. The proposal aimed in part to overcome the continued use of the ‘replica’ term which is an incorrect representation of a restored original vehicle.
This proposal has subsequently been supported by several correspondents who have faced similar problems.
I would therefore suggest that the 8th June suggestion be taken as a serious proposal, subject of course to any proposals which may emerge from other interested persons.
Powerplus |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2159 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2019 : 00:06:11
|
I have just finished reading through the Committee’s own ‘Deffinitions’ only to find that these are not being strictly followed in Yearbook annotations! Various examples on several pages. Clearly, a re-visit seems appropriate as I assume members of the Committee proof read the draft before going to print. It seems the deffinitions in their entirety don’t sit comfortably on both sides of the fence.
I have thought about different phraseology to provide clarity for example; K3 styled NA’ or ‘C Type styled D Type’ but I think the simplest clarity so far is Alan’s suggestion. It creates no confusion and is informative. Can anyone else offer anything better for the Committee to consider.
If however a car has been rebuilt without trying to recreate a specific factory styled model then should is simply be described as a ‘(chassis prefix) special’ . For example the red J type at the start of this topic has an unusual body tub, a P type rad, non standard brakes and lights, front apron etc etc and clearly a diliberate deviation from standard form. There is nothing wrong of course with this type of build but would it be more informative to describe it as a J2 Special, as opposed to a J2.
I appreciate that the term ‘special’ will clash with the Committee current definition although it seems that this term is possibly obsolete within the Committee own definitions.
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
Edited by - Richard Hardy on 11/06/2019 20:04:14 |
|
|
|
tholden
United Kingdom
1638 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2019 : 01:08:24
|
Personally I think this whole discussion is a bit of a waste of time but for what it is worth my opinion is that a clearer description for formal use in the Register would be "J1 rebuilt in J4 style" or N type rebuilt in K3 style.
However I am amazed that a few people on here are getting so worked up about this. Whatever formal words are used in the Register people will continue to call these cars replicas or reps and journalists will continue to make mistakes so really it is all a lot of hot air.
I would rather the committee spent their valuable time debating how to bring fresh blood and younger people in to Triple M because without a resurgence of interest from the younger generation our cars do not have a good future. Oh and yes, well said Onno we need more like you.
TH |
|
|
|
Richard Verrill
United Kingdom
346 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2019 : 02:11:19
|
Perhaps adding the date of the ”styled as”, “remodelled” or “replica” (l am not at all sure which definition fits best) would clearly indicate the car is not as left factory. In Richard’s case J1/2019J4.
To further complicate things surely very few, if any, of our cars are as factory built, we read of modifications and tweaks all the time, this or that now made from a new fangled material, often argued as making parts more reliable or safer on our roads.
I own a car of a period to enjoy that experience, my own PA, if ever she gets on the road, will have an almost complete aluminium panelled body on an un-numbered new ash frame with stainless steel fuel tank but hopefully everything else will be much as the factory intended, no diode, no LED, oh the dashboard will be burr walnut not sequoia redwood, I am afraid I made the board back in the 70s and don’t plan to change it. So am I going to own a remodelled PA?
Hm, just another thought, I will be making both headlights mechanical dipping and sneaking indicators into side lights, oh will have to add a second lamp to the tail-board and may add that widget to make trafficators flash!!!!!!!
Richard
PA1733 YA5206 |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2159 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2019 : 08:04:06
|
Terry
To attract younger new members into the MMM world, a valuable starting point for the future generation would be to assist in allowing them to actually identify models through appearance. There have never been more serious deviations from standard cars than there are today.
Many less knowledgable folk have often said to me over the years, 'how do you distinguish the models, they all look so similar'! It is very misleading if you were coming in to this from afresh.
Is it simply hot air of should we be trying to fine tune shortfalls, create consistency and, best practice.
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
Edited by - Richard Hardy on 10/06/2019 08:08:11 |
|
|
|
chapelfarmer
United Kingdom
242 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2019 : 11:18:50
|
Conscious that this topic is now veering into yet another direction but I am very interested in this question of 'younger people'. I recently spoke to some friends of my kids (ages 23 and 25) about this and was told some pretty serious things - most of which will presumably not be surprising:
1. Younger people are much less interested in cars per se: they're more likely I think to live in cities these days and cars aren't easy to use there.
2. Younger people don't feel very flush and they like to spend what money they have on experiences (travel etc) rather than 'things', which they can see as encumbrances / liabilities.
3. They are much less likely than I was at their age to have any inkling of mechanical knowledge: they just aren't used to owning things that you can fix! My view = At the same time: a) our repair industry has become a restoration industry with £50 an hour charges and no longer the prospect of long educational chats on the phone with generous-minded engineering types (you get the receptionist now and are invited to 'bring the car (and your cheque book) in'...) and b) the cars themselves have often been restored to the point where they are both unaffordable and in danger of containing 'no user-serviceable parts' simply because everything is so pristine you'd be scared to touch it!
4. They see us as a very monochrome bunch: older, male, a bit fixated (!). They are used to doing things with partners / mates / their own kids. They have no apsirational role models from our world and we have no exposure in their media. Pre war cars are passing from 'dad thing' to 'grandad thing' - there may be no way back!!
5. We tend to do things they don't like doing: navigation rallies, car park conversations = not their bag, (although racing, trials and driving tests maybe could be).
6. Much more seriously I think than any of the above - most of them have never been in let alone driven a prewar car. This really resonates for me. My kids loved pootling around in the old motors when they were babies but when they became old enough to drive I couldn't find an insurance company that would let them anywhere near a prewar car until they were 25. Now that they are 25 the moment, I fear, has passed - they have moved away and the opportunity is no longer there.
It strikes me that some of these could be addressed by a concerted effort (FHBVC level?) and might be worth talking about. Presumably not in this thread though, which is about, as I recall, a Chinese Motor Show! I've therefore put it in 'general information'....
john |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3240 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2019 : 11:47:58
|
Rich - the cars you mention on page 68 of the current Yearbook are correctly described as NA, PB and J2 for that is what they are. Perhaps the Editor could have expanded the descriptions by adding that the cars "were rebuilt in the style of....".
Our Chairman Jeremy has suggested that members submit their proposals for consideration. I think these should be sent to our Secretary Dick Morbey for inclusion in the agenda for a future Committee meeting.
In my time as Secretary I very rarely received any response to the AGM Notices asking for topics to be submitted for discussion. Any member holding a particular opinion, such as the descriptions of cars as discussed in this topic, can submit their proposals and attend the AGM to present them.
I think Terry Holden has raised a more important issue, how to attract more younger people. The sale of Triple-M cars has slowed as witness the number of cars advertised on this web site; this could be due to a combination of some of the older generation having passed away and the asking prices being too optimistic and thus beyond the budget of the younger generation?
George
|
Edited by - George Eagle on 10/06/2019 11:52:25 |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2159 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2019 : 12:30:12
|
So, 4.4 of 'the deffinitions' for example potentially makes the PB (Q Type remodel) on page 68 a PB special, and not a PB. The 'PB (Q Type Remodel) approach surely sits better would you not agree George.
A very interesting debate
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
|
|
|
leafrancis14
United Kingdom
323 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2019 : 12:48:19
|
This topic has inspired me!! 
Barny Creaser
(Wellingborough) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
