| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dolts
United Kingdom
1129 Posts |
 Posted - 13/07/2010 : 19:37:01
|
On the vscc point. The vscc is a selective club , didn't even accept mg's until late 70's (correct me if I ve got the wrong decade) glad they do now as it's a great play ground!
surely the register is here to record the history of our cars whatever their state?balanced with a preference to restore orginality of the era. One day a converted car will belong to someone that didn't make the call to cut it up or restore it. Why should they be restricted? It's a great club to be part of!
Thanks
Mark Dolton
|
Edited by - Dolts on 13/07/2010 19:39:25 |
 |
|
|
phil
United Kingdom
149 Posts |
Posted - 14/07/2010 : 10:35:53
|
Hello All,
Interesting views, it made me wonder how many 'bitsa' MG's are out there and how many 'original' cars exist?
Out of all the 'bitsa' MG's out there, is there a chance that someone must have Eng No ***, and maybe someone else has the correct chassis. With a database of Eng-No's, Chassis-No's and a lot of luck, maybe some 'bitsa' MG's could be reunited.
Or am I mad 
|
Edited by - phil on 14/07/2010 10:37:30 |
|
|
|
peterfenichel
United Kingdom
79 Posts |
Posted - 14/07/2010 : 13:50:28
|
This topic comes up every so often... and has also been pretty well debated on the VSCC web forum over the past few years. My point remains that I believe the desire to encourage "originality" is just not at all practical given that the definition of that aspect of a 80 year old piece of engineered metal is very very wide indeed. And, to answer the more recent question, there are in fact many current cases of "original" cars that no longer have the original engine. I can assure you from experience that the economics of taking a real car (assuming just that the chassis and engine numbers match those from the factory records) and using that base to "cut up a touring car" to make a racing Special simply does not make financial sense any longer. Again, from experience, most Specials are created from chassis and engine components that are in bits on the workshop floor. Fact is our cars are no longer cheap enough nor is the price differnce between a real touring car and a racer really enough to justify using that as a basis. Specials have a place... and given that a real K3 can now make in excess of £400,000 I suspect using bits to build effective race cars (and those recognised by the FIA via their HTP process) ever more viable.
Peter Fenichel |
|
|
|
tonym
United Kingdom
653 Posts |
Posted - 14/07/2010 : 16:56:07
|
Re Marks message, yesterday, about VSCC acceptance
You could get in with an M-type as production started prior to the 1930 cut off date.
I joined in 67 - put the badge on my M - mainly as a bit of one-upmanship over the lowly regarded P's and J's etc. |
|
|
|
briang
United Kingdom
218 Posts |
Posted - 14/07/2010 : 23:43:41
|
I could cut the valance additions off the cycle wings of my J2, and cut off the lower front extensions to the rear wings (See J2338 in pictures section of website) and I would probably increase the "value" of the car slightly because it would then look the same as original J2s. (In almost all other respects, it is original)
But I'm not going to, as these mods were done pre-1946 , plus they have been keeping the mud off me for quite a few years now. I like the idea that someone in the distant past cared enough to make some careful mods to my car.
Unfortunately I've had the odd sneering remark that "its a pity the wings are not original".
Brian |
|
|
|
Peter RW
United Kingdom
9 Posts |
Posted - 15/07/2010 : 20:21:29
|
Hi All,
I'm new on the forum and have just started a new topic about restoring my PB. To a certain extent, my restoration falls within this topic. My PB currently has a perfectly good 2 seater normal body on it, which it has had for the last 30 years. However, when it left the factory, it has a door less pointed tail body. Given that this was the original factory specification, should I return it to this by creating a new body and getting rid of the current one?? I've put a bit more info on the history of the car in my new topic. I'm looking at restoring the car pretty soon but am seeking opinions first!
Thanks,
Peter
|
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 15/07/2010 : 21:13:02
|
Hi Peter,
What a nice dilemma to have  !
Did you obtain actual copies of the service file from the club or did they just tell you what's in it? The complete file may turn up other early owners that could still be traced, even if 'only' children or grandchildren. Family photo albums often remain, right?!
There's some very knowledgable people on this forum that must know of all the 'standard' cars that were not that standard when they left the works and who will surely respond to your query.
Also, if it was indeed a doorless pointed tail bodied car, chances are that it was used for sporting events and hence pictures can possibly be traced through these same knowledgable people.
Here's hoping  !
Regards,
Cathelijne
|
|
|
|
Peter RW
United Kingdom
9 Posts |
Posted - 15/07/2010 : 21:49:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cathelijne
Did you obtain actual copies of the service file from the club or did they just tell you what's in it?
Hi Cathelijne,
I phoned them up and they told me over the phone and then emailed me some details so I haven't seen the file itself. I think I need to take a trip to Abingdon!
The info that they were able to give me was:
PB 0762, manufactured 12/2/36, original engine number 987APB (I know it doesn't have this anymore as a piston and conrod went through the block when my dad owned it). Body style 2 seat sports, blue coachwork with blue interior trim. Supplied to CH Truman, Nottingham 6/4/36. Sold to JC Naake 6/4/36.
Then there is an old record car which states "pointed tail doorless body" and an older card with the same information. As far as I know, the registration CAL398 is probably the original one as AL covered Nottingham although I can't confirm this.
I'm hopeful that someone here may have some pictures which show the car!
|
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 15/07/2010 : 22:22:35
|
Hi Peter,
A trip to Abingdon should be worth your while, but John Inness there will presumably also be happy to send you copies virtually at cost!
Good luck!
Cat
|
|
|
|
Rodney Collins
United Kingdom
424 Posts |
Posted - 18/07/2010 : 20:25:46
|
I understand people not wanting to see an original car broken up and turned into something it was not intended to be, however our ancestors were doing this back in the 30's and some of you lucky people are driving around in their handy work todat 70 years on. Like Peter I totaly object the the lable of Boy Racer, I remeber a few years ago at Brooklands a beautiful P type which had been given cycle wings aero screens and looked every bit a Le Mans racer, and was pristeen from top to bottom, a very proment T MMM member said to his wife, "Bloody Boy Racer"! What is that all about! So much for a friendly club, it certianly put me off of going to T MMM events, As my P type was a "BOY RACERS" car and I loved it for being just that. In 70 year time these modified cars will be just as much sort after as K3 are today, Just accept that we are all different, I like Gin & Tonic with Ice and a slice of Lime, I don't like whisky so what!
Rodney PS for once I go along with Barry Walker. |
|
|
|
RacingSnake
United Kingdom
62 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2010 : 01:07:08
|
Rodney, I suggest you re-read BW's post. The facts may be true, but I do not think the conclusion in his post is anything to agree with.
@BW - Spare us the lecture- It's a forum!
Expression of opinion is not necessarily "moaning", and if you actually read the posts with an unformed opinion, then it would be apparent that there is little if any "moaning".
It make shock you to learn that not everybody has piles of spare money lying around ready to buy your cars; but that does not eliminate a desire for them, or a sense of dismay when the person with sufficient money (& desire to do something with it- of their own free will of course) is able to buy them and do what they like.
As you must be well aware, business is not about niceties; it's about money, otherwise it is just an expensive way to spend your time, but I think there can be times (maybe not this one) when a vendor or their agent can be well-placed to advise (but not dictate to) the purchaser what he/she might do with their new acquisition. As you said, Head vs. Heart, and I am sure you struck the appropriate balance.
The financial aspects of the deal and whatever it involved to enable a sale is actually the only bit that really is "other people's business" so that should not be brought into the discussion and is of little consequence, as all parties must have been sufficiently happy, as the deal has been closed. The car was publicly advertised in both forms, so it seems fair for people to comment on it.
The above is not to decry you for trading (As David Allison suggested some had), but potential customers might be better treated with a little more respect on a public forum.
Anyway...BTT....as things seemed to have wandered somewhat, mainly with people defending the evolution of their vehicle or derinding those that chase the ethereal "original" specification. Those cans are stuffed full of worms, and not really within the remit of the OP.
Martin's original post has a large clue in the title: "Cutting up good cars". Not, "Don't change your bodywork/springs/carbs/supercharger/etc...").
In my mind there is an undeniable sorrow in the splitting of body or engine or chassis of a vehicle that is fully functional, and even more so if it has an interesting or significant history (I have no idea if the car in question has any history), particularly if you spent a part of your life making some of that history.
That said, economics dictates the path for the majority of vehicles, and if that means the car is split to generate a special and rebody an otherwise naked chassis, that is the best outcome for all. At least it didn't get scrapped, and we will hopefully see two cars on the road.
Is it time to introduce rules? (As the OP asked) - I don't think so, as it gets you lots of grief, it would not prevent the determined rule-bender, and it might reduce the total number of cars in action. As PF said, this is quite a rare occurance within MMM anyway. As Mark D said, the Register should do just that, and keep whatever info it has on the way the various cars evolve, as this will always be interesting when looking back through the mists of time, when all of them will be "special" to somebody in some way (or they will have been melted down and made into mobile phones...)
|
|
|
|
PeterL
United Kingdom
1722 Posts |
Posted - 19/07/2010 : 22:38:26
|
I have read the previous entry with interest and it impinges upon the recent changes in the Register.
I would like to see the register hold all possible info on all our cars whether known survivors or not so that it is as comprehensive as possible. It would then be a record of our cars at each stage of their evolution.
Rules no, or as few as possible, a full record of all changes? yes please.
Cheers
P |
|
|
|
Martin Warner
United Kingdom
85 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2010 : 10:36:09
|
I have just returned from a couple of weeks or so in France and was pleasantly surprised to see that I have got the juices flowing with my opening shot about the latest "cut and shut" K1 tourer. An excellent debate and thanks to everyone for joining in.
As always these threads get slightly off subject. I hold no truck with slavish originality. If you look not too closely at my KN you will find all sorts of mods all over it, all removable of course! I have done two thousand miles in the last couple of weeks, mostly two-up with all our luggage. This included holding our own for a few laps of the Le Mans circuit at the Classic and going four up to a few restaurants in the Dordogne. On the way back I managed three hundred miles before lunch. So why would anyone want to cut up such a perfect all round Triple-M car?
I have travelled in and driven K3s, both real ones and replicas. A real one gives you that glorious sense of being in touch with history so you forgive it its foibles. A replica on a hot day is one of the most unpleasantly uncomfortable and noisy experiences I have ever had in a Triple-M car (sorry Patrick). So why do people want to saw up chassis to create even more of these "limbo" cars? it is either that they don't understand what they are doing or it is simply money.
I agree with a lot of the sentiment that if you have a pile of bits then getting them back on the road in anyway possible is to be commended, but taking a roadworthy car apart to create a lesser machine should not be condoned.
Peter Green informs me that that while the VSCC have said that they will not accept this new replica (they did when it was a tourer) the Triple-M register must because it contains original parts. Quite rightly we can only sit and watch while owners do what they wish with their cars. However a shot across the bows from a concerned Register would help to make them think carefully before embarking upon a borderline project.
Finally I need some help. If I should decide to sell my car should I saw it up first to maximise its value or should I just sell it and let some one else do it? Advice please. Perhaps all K 4-seaters should be listed on the Register as K3Ps (K3 potentials). |
|
|
|
sas
United Kingdom
73 Posts |
Posted - 24/08/2010 : 22:31:21
|
A most intriguing post, to say the least, and all views expressed are valid to varying degrees, depending of course on your point of view, which will always differ from everyone elses.
However the triple-m register makes it patently clear what is acceptable and the way it accepts each car on an individual basis, and as a consequence my main observation is "caveat emptor", and that applies to everything in life.
The World is half full of honest people. The other half are call them what you like.
Personally, i do not consider anyone a custodian, either you own it or you don't. If you own it, you can do what you want. If you don't own it you can buy your own.
Right or wrong, that is my view.
Adieu
Sean |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
