| Author |
 Topic  |
|
McEvoy
United Kingdom
252 Posts |
 Posted - 17/12/2011 : 21:56:12
|
AS Terry said there is room for everyone to build what they like and enjoy but no way are these cars Q type replicas, they are T type specials built to look like or in the style of a Q type at best.
The terminology TA/Q Special is not a legitimate term as far as the Register is concerned.
Bob |
 |
|
|
Terry Andrews
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - 18/12/2011 : 11:03:03
|
This debate and opinions could go on for ever.  So this is my last post on this subject. My friend did acquire a complete TA to build his third car from the USA. When it arrived it was too good to destroy to make a T special. However, when he advertised it he did not sell it to some because he believed they were going to dismantle it to make a special and not restore it as a TA. We are keeping an eye on the car to see if the buyer was true to his word…. But once you sell a car you have no hold over it.
With regard to the nomenclature as to what cars are called, I agree with Jeremy as to the way the Triple-M register should call our cars within our Register. It would be nice if people within the Triple-M world would stick to this as has been disseminated down from committee for years now. I also agree that the dealers want to sex up the cars to make a sale. My view there is more of this surrounding various Triple-M models than these T specials. E.g., K1’s to K 3’s J2’s to J3 & 4’s and so on. However, we are actually discussing another register here. The T register recognises these cars as T specials. However, there are many T special body styles Lesters etc. So it is my understanding in order to understand what style body the special has fitted the term T /Q special was derived as a type. The Triple-M register members may have there views but so do the T register. Everybody knows about these cars and they are not pretending to be anything else than something to have fun in, in the style of a Q type. Not everyone can afford a Triple-M car and as Greg says you can build one for buttons compared to a Triple-M car. …..MG is the mark of friendship … isn’t it? So lets be a little more friendly to those who get another MG on the road and used. BTW Sussex Sports Cars did not sell the car in the picture….. Happy Christmas Everyone….. Terry A
|
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1044 Posts |
Posted - 18/12/2011 : 14:33:50
|
I am with the "call it what it is" crew on this one.
And as said specials are the back bone of racing and should be there.
But there are plenty of owners who have to me stated that they where driving Q-types!
When they clearly are T specials.
I do not know why they do this.
Maybe they think that a young guy would not know anything about it.
Or they do not realy know what they own/drive.
But it does not do the reputation of the T special community any good.
Onno "D" Könemann |
|
|
|
PeterL
United Kingdom
1722 Posts |
Posted - 18/12/2011 : 15:08:38
|
One can record one's regret at the passing of a fine car with the birth of a rep or take pleasure in the "new birth" depending on point of view. I would however be rather sad if my father's K were discovered and repped. A little bit of my youth would be lost but then the car hasn't surfaced so it may be lost anyway.
The C Type rep for sale recently in America as I recall bears the chassis number of a C Type in this country but is or was being advertised under its engine number rather than chassis number. There would appear to be blatant dishonesty going on here although by not selling it under the chassis number you might call it blatant honesty.
There is a far deeper problem here than building reps. It would seem that originality and the efforts of previous owners count for too little. I gather Mel Books' J has been restored to original which is the story in reverse and loses the club a little bit of its historical excitement, I suspect Mel would be disappointed and I certainly am on his account.
The rush to reps is fuelled by two things: commercial considerations and the need for VSCC eligibility (and MGCC recognition). It is in the latter area that I would like to see change. If new chassis were allowed for reps the destruction of original cars would not be necessary and the numbers of our cars would swell even more. All I would ask is that there is a system of recording these new chassis. Incidentally, I am surprised, talking around, how many MMM cars are already on new chassis which is the route I am going down with F0313.
I do know of a couple of other people with dumb irons in their possession and when a car has been reduced to this sort of circumstance it can be built up to whatever the owner wants without upsetting any but the purest purist and of course you end up with a nice number plate!
Whilst we wait for the VSCC to change its rules we should perhaps help the Reps merchants by trawling everybody's workshops for spare dumb irons and making them available.
Oh and my answer to the original question? T/Q seems fine to me, but I'd rather they were actually proper Q Reps with new chassis and new engine.
Happy Christmas
Peter L |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2159 Posts |
Posted - 18/12/2011 : 18:56:09
|
I can never understand why these T type bods make such nasty looking front aprons either and of such poor proportions. Maybe they do it deliberately to make them look like a T type special!
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
|
|
|
Simon Johnston
United Kingdom
6121 Posts |
Posted - 18/12/2011 : 19:27:39
|
Rich,
I think 'codpiece' is the term you're looking for! |
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 18/12/2011 : 23:23:49
|
Bob S.
In answer to your original posting, this is a transcript of the 'official' Register document relating to the matter.
Triple-M MG’s – Specials and Non-Standard Cars
How the Triple-M Register describes cars that are not built to their original specification.
This guidance will be used by the officials of the Triple-M Register in response to enquiries, or in commenting upon issues, regarding the proper description of specials and non-standard cars constructed on Triple-M chassis.
The Triple-M Register does not recognize the description 'Replica' when applied to any Triple-M car other than the factory produced M 12/12 Type Replicas.
A car built in the style of one car but on the chassis of another will be described as the chassis type on which it is built. For example, a C type copy built on a D type chassis will be described as a D type. Likewise, a car built in the style of a J4 on a J2 chassis will be described as a J2. The same applies to a car built in the style of a Q type, K3 or NE.
A Triple-M car fitted with a non-standard (for model) Triple-M engine will be described as such. A J2 chassis fitted with a PB engine is a J2-PB. Furthermore if the engine is supercharged it will be described as J2-PB/s.
The Register is not opposed to the term 'special' if a car is fitted with a non-standard (for chassis) body, but it will be described as the chassis type on which it is built. For example, a single seat body fitted on an N type chassis will be described as an N type special.
The Register does not recognize a car described as J2/J4 or K1/K3 or P/Q etc. as it implies that some main parts of the car are genuine J4, K3, or Q type etc. when they are not.
In former years it was common practice for constructors or designers to incorporate their name in the description of a special, e.g. Bellevue Special, Turner MG or Lester MG. Some specials were given names by their owners, e.g. 'Bongazoo'. The Register has no objection to these descriptions still being used.
Peter |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 20/12/2011 : 09:54:56
|
MMM Register rules are not, of course, anything to do with cars built using a T-Type chassis since they can't be listed. Presumably there is no bar to them taking part in pre-war MG events.
For an example of a 'Q-Special' on our side of the fence, see today's Prewarcar.com. No doubt a member cleverer than I can do the link.
Bob. |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3238 Posts |
Posted - 20/12/2011 : 10:38:15
|
I believe some of these cars are built on a modified TC chassis i.e. suspension converted to trunnions.
The VSCC now accept TAs, with correct MPJG engine, and TBs. As such the TC based cars and those TAs with XPAG engines would not be eligible?
George |
|
|
|
BobRichards RIP
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 20/12/2011 : 11:01:20
|
Just to clarify VSCC acceptability of MG cars, here is an extract from the current eligibility list:
MG (OHC cars, SA, VA, WA, TA, and TB. VA, TA and TB only accepted in Standard form. The X PAG Engine will not be accepted in other vehicles or in specials) |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 20/12/2011 : 13:30:37
|
Bob,
Rather than "our side of the fence", I think that the car on prewarcar.com is pretty much sitting on top of it - the camshaft's slipped!
JH |
|
|
|
Bob Stringfield
United Kingdom
854 Posts |
Posted - 20/12/2011 : 16:48:25
|
The implication - nothing more than that - is that it has a PA chassis.
'Price on Request' is ominous, no doubt down to the 'Concours Win'.
|
|
|
|
kimber
United Kingdom
1529 Posts |
Posted - 20/12/2011 : 19:50:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Stringfield
The implication - nothing more than that - is that it has a PA chassis.
It appears to have 12" cable brakes. Do the people using T-type chassis retro fit cable brakes? |
|
|
|
JMH
United Kingdom
911 Posts |
Posted - 20/12/2011 : 22:18:41
|
There are two things I don't really understand with a car like this:
1. Why take a P chassis & running gear, go to the trouble lengthening it (judging by the proportions), then spend a lot of money on a body that is a poor repro of a Q Type (some of the finer points are well off), before throwing in expensive, but completely wrong mechanicals & then attaching some sort of "Q" credentials to it all. You could have probably built an un-blown P special for less?
2. There were only 8 Q types made & they are something to be marveled at. As a child, a Q was my own "ultimate" MG & had fate not intervened, there might have been one in the family. Others have built pretty good & accurate Q specification cars, but attaching "Q" to things like this, whether in adverts, entry lists, programmes or anything else is just disingenuous, so why is it tolerated?
I'm not a radical "purist" - specials were/are the lifeblood of club motorsport & are sometimes very sucessful, witness the series of Kayne Specials & a certain XPAGed J2 which has been so sucessful for so long now that it's "honary" MMM! Restorations too don't always have to be "spot-on", any car back on the road/tracks is a good thing. However, "Maintaining the Breed" this latest development is not, it's more like "Pimp my Ride".
A Metro with a body-kit doesn't make a 6R4!
Happy Christmas everyone,
JH
|
|
|
|
PeterL
United Kingdom
1722 Posts |
Posted - 21/12/2011 : 00:21:51
|
I suspect that one of two things motivate the people who build these reps, one is money and the other is speed or the desire to compete. I alluded to this in my post of 18th.
Both these motivating forces are things that potentially will lead to the destruction of “proper” cars.
People fancy the “square rigger” style MGs. To make money or go faster with these in mind you build something out of a 4 cylinder car which looks and hopefully goes like a C, J4 or Q, and out of a 6 cylinder it will invariably be based on the K3. To me this seems entirely natural.
The people who do this don’t necessarily have a deep knowledge of MMM MGs, they may not know the history of the car or that original chassis files might be available; the P for sale in France might be a case in point, built for competition by the owner. Whoever did the work made a pretty good job of it if he was just working from a photo and he probably thinks it is beautiful and the MG Q was almost certainly the “inspiration” for it. This approach is different to that taken by the person building an accurate K3 replica for sale.
The problem with this is the loss of original cars as they are repped or specialised and this happens because if you want to have a nice number and a VSCC eligibility you HAVE to start off with an original car.
It is quite possible now to build or have built a brand new chassis and there are brand new blocks. The problem is that they will not bear club or VSCC eligibility or have period registration numbers.
So you can now have a chopped up K1 looking vaguely like a K3 allowed to compete whilst a faithful recreation of an original K3 is not.
When these regulations were first laid down it was probably not envisaged that original cars would be destroyed in this way. Given that that is now happening is it time for a rethink?
Cheers
P
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
