Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rstainer

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 25
286
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / A 427 with an interesting history!
« on: January 14, 2013, 09:37:04 »
A-Snake,
   
   It's VIN tampering in the USA and unlawful in the UK. The unlawful is principally achieved by either false declaration or ignorant non-declaration of the 'facts', giving this car firstly VIN CSX3140 and secondly, many years later, VIN CSX3272.
   
   Questionable registration will always be a factor in a car's market value and can preclude its sale in certain jurisdictions. Although often described as 'a bargain' these words are rarely used by the buyer once he becomes a seller.
   
   RS

287
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / A 427 with an interesting history!
« on: January 12, 2013, 16:44:18 »
The register classifies this car as a Replica constructed in 1979:
   Built by Lynn Park, using some parts that were discarded when CSX 3272 was rebuilt. This car was given the chassis number CSX 3140 in 1979, but renumbered 3272 in 2005.
   [Lynn Park, Rod Leach]
   (The original 3272 exists, in the USA)

288
Ace, Aceca & Greyhound Forum / BQX1630?
« on: January 09, 2013, 09:56:42 »
Jay,
   
   The vendor is being imaginative.
   
   RS

289
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / Csx2433 fro sale
« on: December 09, 2012, 17:30:03 »
Canepa has “meticulously returned (2433) to its original competition configuration.”
   
   Schott’s configuration was dark blue, wire wheels, small windscreen, full-width removable roll bar and chin spoiler (SAAC Register). Perkins’ configuration was similar, with the car in metallic burgundy.
   
   Where, I wonder, does Canepa’s ‘original competition configuration’ information come from?

290
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / AC Cobra Mk III for sale
« on: November 26, 2012, 16:36:57 »
The speculation is correct, 6105 receiving the full Angliss 'as new' treatment in 1989. If the car had comprehensive insurance, the insurer would have paid a much smaller pre-agreed sum.

291
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / AC Cobra Mk III for sale
« on: November 25, 2012, 17:09:45 »
The Register on the Club's website records 6105 as (a) being rebodied but nor rechassied in 1989 and (b) not having a replica. If anyone has different information please let me know.
   
   Rebodied vs repaired? There are no insurance, taxation or registration differences.

292
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / AC Cobra Mk III for sale
« on: November 20, 2012, 10:53:45 »
£385,000 - optimistic for this particular car.
   
   RS

293
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / FIA Appendix K ROPS Regulations
« on: November 17, 2012, 11:55:48 »
Barrie,
   
   It's only competitors (or Clubs working on their behalf) that can cause regulations to be changed. If a significant number press for change and the historical facts are on their side, it will happen.

294
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / AC Cobra Mk III for sale
« on: November 17, 2012, 11:48:09 »
This is COB 6105, an AC 289 Sports rebodied in 1989 in Abgliss style. If it's a Mark anything, it's a Mark II; see, for example, Rinsey Mills' 'AC Cobra'.

295
General Forum / Why Goodwood is great ...
« on: September 24, 2012, 19:51:18 »
Andy,
   
   As I see it (having chaired an HSCC series for many years) neither the marshalls nor GPG 4C’s driver did anything wrong; the stranded car’s position was clear to all drivers and the incident had been properly yellow flagged. Martin Brundle can only look to himself when considering how he very severely damaged two cars that he has no financial or historical interest in whatsoever.
   
   Does celebrity racing do anything for historic motorsport? I’m thoroughly unconvinced.
   
   RS

296
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / mk1 cox and cob
« on: August 28, 2012, 14:44:58 »

297
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / mk1 cox and cob
« on: August 28, 2012, 14:41:36 »
Re previous post: 'Simple observation shows that those who race historically correct cars are several seconds a lap slower than the ‘why bother with historical accuracy’ persuasion.I’d like to illustrate my point with a photo of 2532 (see the register) but the Forum technology defeats me; if anyone emails me the procedure (rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk) I’ll post the photo and you’ll see a steering assembly (and many other components) unlike any product of AC/Cam Gears or any other 60’s supplier.'
   
   Here it is (I hope):
   

298
Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / mk1 cox and cob
« on: August 27, 2012, 20:48:10 »
Barrie makes some very interesting points and the central proposition, a design in two halves, is correct in both senses: two halves (back, then front), and a proper design, test, production set-up etc for each half. Rinsey Mills’ ‘AC Cobra’ gives a useful account of the front-end changes on pages 40 & 41.
   
   The 2030 suggestion is very interesting, but only inspection would answer it definitively; unfortunately the car was last heard of in a dismantled state thirty years ago and I suspect it may have been destroyed. However the historical facts and timing tie in with Barrie’s suggestion:
   
  • The AC Factory Ledger is noted ‘Instructions issued 12 Sept 62’, the car was finished towards the end of October and registered in Nov 62. I wonder what the instructions were?

    •    
  • The Shelby American ledger lists it as ‘AC Test Car’

    •    
  • Per my records the car was paid for by Shelby but remained in AC’s hands for a year until sold to a Mr Dent on 18 Nov 63.

    •    
       As Barrie writes, although listed in the Factory Ledger as a ‘Demonstration Car’, AC had no reason to demonstrate anything. Finally, worm and peg it is: Register Introduction amended.

    299
    Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / mk1 cox and cob
    « on: August 27, 2012, 14:07:22 »
    I tend to be slightly shy of an argument that starts with ‘surely’ and finishes with ‘guess’.
       
       Unfortunately the 2051 point tells us something about modern ‘historic’ racing but nothing about period competition. All 2051’s extensive period competition history was with worm & sector steering and 2051 was one of the best-preserved of all early period race cars for almost forty years, as could be seen at Silverstone in 98 when the car arrived in the UK.
       
       Its new owner, a fully paid up member of the ‘if it makes it go faster, why bother with historical accuracy’ persuasion, then revised the car’s entire suspension and steering geometry, installed rack and pinion and made numerous further modifications that appeared to shed weight, add stiffness and improve handling.
       
       Simple observation shows that those who race historically correct cars are several seconds a lap slower than the ‘why bother with historical accuracy’ persuasion. I’d like to illustrate my point with a photo of 2532 (see the register) but the Forum technology defeats me; if anyone emails me the procedure (rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk) I’ll post the photo and you’ll see a steering assembly (and many other components) unlike any product of AC/Cam Gears or any other 60’s supplier.

    300
    Cobra (Thames Ditton) Forum / mk1 cox and cob
    « on: August 27, 2012, 10:52:27 »
    ‘The parts bin’ argument is, I believe, wheeled out in order to (a) avoid the messy business of examining evidence and assessing motives and (b) improve the self-image of the arguer by implying that he would have done a better job than the managers, designers and craftsmen who built the cars in 62 and 63:
       
  • There is no evidence that AC overstocked components and materials; to the contrary, the evidence is that their stores operation was well run

    •    
  • There is no evidence that AC management made anything other than proper engineering decisions

    •    
  • The Ace Bishop worm and sector steering assemblies would have been racked, not kept in ‘the parts bin’.

    •    
       I don’t think we’ll ever know what triggered the change; theories are always welcome, but only if preceded by thought and accompanied by evidence!

    Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 25