| Author |
 Topic  |
|
spitfire
United Kingdom
371 Posts |
 Posted - 20/01/2012 : 21:53:21
|
As I raised the Type Subdivision as a thread, it is interesting to see how members perceive subtle changes.
Yes, Bruce has flagged up that the cars have so much in common... but subtle changes, the point when the J2 exhaust changed, have a direct relevance to a J2, not a PB.
With my car- I have to get a windscreen, as someone has poached it since the last registered owner. Exactly what did the side screens (with insert) rear window shape look like?
I could spray it metalflake, electric blue and trim, hood it in cream... I feel sure some people would prefer it that way. Or I could seek to emulate what it would have been. Every hole and bracket doing what it was created for.
There is The Club. With all it's corporate AND INDIVIDUAL knowledge.
There are new and multi MMM owners.
I would have thought type specific areas would spotlight specific areas of knowledge.
Tease out information from those who know... "Hang on, I'll just take the tape measure out to the garage."
I didn't see any division aspect, anymore than a J2 and L2 sat next to each other.
You can see a shared evolution, but I cannot buy L parts for my J!
I posted information about hoods. (J2)
I received gracious replies, offers of help, but "sorry, I've got a *** and wouldn't know how a J2 *** used to fit!"
This is why I suggested a pretty logical step in streaming cars into their unique type.
Of course, there is now the issue of an OUTSIDE sphere of influence.
Short of having decades worth of records, the MMM Register membership "on board" I think it would be a struggle of a development.
I referred, as Mike Hawke would have, as a specific "pooling" of type related issues.
I could have bought an L type, the resources were there, but I liked what the J2, with cycle wings represented.
The other week, I went to sit in one of the new Morgan Three Wheelers. It did very little for me. Felt overly engineered... I thought, "No this isn't IT."
So I bought a J2.
Not a MMM CAR.
I wanted to have and tend to a J2. |
 |
|
|
LewPalmer
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 21/01/2012 : 00:27:42
|
I don't understand what all the discussion is about. The fact of the matter is that anyone can build a website, about anything, at any time. So if some enterprising soul wants to build a web site strictly about Js, nothing prevents them from doing so. If individual owners want to list their cars on that site, nothing prevents them from doing so. And, if there is value in such a site, people, including other J owners, will soon find the site. Should the site be cross linked to the Triple-M official site? Why not? Does it need to be part of the official Triple-M site? No. No more than the D-type site, the F-Magna site, or any other marque or model site.
So, as the line from the movie "Field of Dreams" says: "If you build it, they will come."
Lew Palmer
Registrar, NAMMMR |
|
|
|
spitfire
United Kingdom
371 Posts |
Posted - 21/01/2012 : 09:03:06
|
I have to say I'm with Lew, on what he expresses.
However, it has split into two threads.
An MMM Type Section for each model.
and
A standalone J Type site.
The matter that some enterprising soul has only just started to create one... Might have something to do with how the Internet, more importantly, the ease that anyone can construct digital encylopedias on the internet... has chimed out.
The difficulties start with collecting and collating the MMM details available. North America, arguably did more to promote MG than anywhere else.
Interesting to hear from people who have gone it alone, without moseying down to Abingdon.
I am getting Worldwide swathes of information being e mailed to me on What a J Type is, in terms of construction.
MORE SO THAN FROM THE UK.
I can see the cobbling together a missing racing K3 might be on the cards for those wishing to cash in on the Classic Car Marketplace.
I also feel damned sure plenty of MMM cars are NOT what they started as. Like the Art world, People want something that they find aesthetically rewarding. People shell out to get what they want. Other people engineer to produce what (the market?) wants.
CECIL KIMBER DID THIS.
My car was, in the past, raced with a racing body I believe, then converted back. Many cars have changed.
Am I to believe that pictorially accurate restoration guides will start a MMM counterfeiting cottage industry?
It seems to be inferred that The Club should SIT on any information gleaned over it's considerable history.
So when does the guardian become the jailor?
Are we on a liberty vs. complacency dust up?
So far, I have virtually all the information gleaned about J2 VOLUNTEERED from Germany, Canada, USA copied from American sources.
Those initially coming via the MGCC.
More and more information is being transferred or solely produced as a digital document (you are looking at one. A digital political discussion)
Isn't it simply time to wake up, smell the coffee... Celebrate what is to hand?
Seperate Type Compartmentalising, is all that was proposed.
A streamlining of information.
Exactly the same as any published book would describe the Types.
Personally I don't see a logic in putting all types together.
Security, confidentiality...
A bit of cross referencing starting with the members' cars page lets you know plenty of volunteered information.
I realise the Club and it's committee are custodians for the members interests but I struggle to see what changes by including owner/car details. After all, it can be sourced from the gallery.
Is this the sticking point to the logic of Type listing?
It seems to be thrown up as a real issue.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
