Lets see a picture of your classic(s)

[Dapster]

MrB. said:

My "neo-classic"! Perhaps not as classic as some on here, but I love it. Sadly up for sale now though.

Love it!! Need to get some ginger-cators on it and it's bang on. That's the 2.5, right?

[MrB.]

Really

Dapster said:

Love it!! Need to get some ginger-cators on it and it's bang on. That's the 2.5, right?

I like be the clean, clear indicator look though! Yes, a 2.5-16, in Allabaster Silver. Suspension is non standard, but otherwise, as God intended. I have a weird tendency to anything fast, obscure and German!

[Dapster]

MrB. said:

I like be the clean, clear indicator look though! Yes, a 2.5-16, in Allabaster Silver. Suspension is non standard, but otherwise, as God intended. I have a weird tendency to anything fast, obscure and German!

Alabaster? You mean Astral don't you? Looks low - did you keep the self levelling? I'd love one. Sadly funds and space don't allow...

[MrB.]

Dapster said:

MrB. said:

I like be the clean, clear indicator look though! Yes, a 2.5-16, in Allabaster Silver. Suspension is non standard, but otherwise, as God intended. I have a weird tendency to anything fast, obscure and German!

Alabaster? You mean Astral don't you? Looks low - did you keep the self levelling? I'd love one. Sadly funds and space don't allow...

I've been told Allabaster and Astral Silver, so not sure what is correct. Whatever it is, it was only ever on the 2.5's and not the 2.3's. The previous owner ditched the self-levelling, and whilst I quite like the low stance, it's too low really. It's not uncomfortable, just not very practical.

[RichB]

Where are you based or am I missing the joke?

[Dand E Lion]

RichB said:

Where are you based or am I missing the joke?

My poor attempt at a Cricklewood joke at the expense of the Derby and Crewe cars. Bentley Drivers Club = drivers, Rolls Royce Enthusiasts Club = polishers

[RichB]

Ah right, either way that's a nice display of cars!

[Yertis]

RichB said:

Or more correctly from the days when horsepower was derived by some weird formula invented by the RAC to allow the government to tax vehicles according to the HP rating

Is there a reverse formula, to arrive at a contemporary equivalent? I've always been baffled by twenty ton steam ploughing engines having only 16hp or whatever.

[RichB]

Yertis said:

RichB said:

Or more correctly from the days when horsepower was derived by some weird formula invented by the RAC to allow the government to tax vehicles according to the HP rating

Is there a reverse formula, to arrive at a contemporary equivalent? I've always been baffled by twenty ton steam ploughing engines having only 16hp or whatever.

I can't imagine you could derive anything scientific from it as it was (just guessing) just a factor of stroke, bore and no cylinders. I've got some old RAC books downstairs I'll see what it was precisly

[Rostfritt]

Yertis said:

Is there a reverse formula, to arrive at a contemporary equivalent? I've always been baffled by twenty ton steam ploughing engines having only 16hp or whatever.

I thought it was something to do with being able to do the work of 16 horses or something. Seems inexact but I think is comparing how much ploughing you can do with it.

[thegreenhell]

RichB said:

Yertis said:

RichB said:

Or more correctly from the days when horsepower was derived by some weird formula invented by the RAC to allow the government to tax vehicles according to the HP rating

Is there a reverse formula, to arrive at a contemporary equivalent? I've always been baffled by twenty ton steam ploughing engines having only 16hp or whatever.

I can't imagine you could derive anything scientific from it as it was (just guessing) just a factor of stroke, bore and no cylinders. I've got some old RAC books downstairs I'll see what it was precisly

[theadman]

I can understand using the bore and the number of cylinders, but why would you divide it by 2.5 rather than 3 or 7 or any other random number? Does anyone know?

[ATTAK Z]

theadman said:

I can understand using the bore and the number of cylinders, but why would you divide it by 2.5 rather than 3 or 7 or any other random number? Does anyone know?

From Wiki:
The division by 2.5 in the RAC formula was supposed to account for the relatively low efficiency of early automotive engines and when first implemented in 1910 the RAC horsepower number was usually representative of the car's actual (brake) horsepower. However as engine design and technology progressed in the 1920s and 1930s these two figures began to drift apart, with an engine making much more power than its RAC rating (and the car's model name) suggested - even by 1924 the Austin Seven's 747cc engine produced 10.5 brake horsepower - 50 per cent more than its official rating.

[RichB]

I did say it was random! Incidentally just realised my Lagonda must have the same horsepower as that traction engine someone mentioned

[Mark A S]

Just acquired this, 1959 made Hotchkiss Jeep. No rust, runs great, HUGE amount of fun and great old school mechanics

[FWDRacer]

Everyone loves an old Mini, right?

[Johnspex]

FWDRacer said:

Everyone loves an old Mini, right?

That's lovely, but the wheels don't appear central in the arches and the wheel centre caps don't appear central in the wheels. Is it just the photograph or are you an incredibly talented photographer and it's actually a model?

[FWDRacer]

A very real '86 car.

The photo is a bit of an optical illusion - there is very slight lock on and the car is running with about 7 degrees of castor and 1.5 degrees of neg camber, so the geometry settings are pretty different to standard car. Rear end is tubed, to get the suspension travel back on a lowered car.

There are no centre caps - you are looking at the CV nuts and hub nut cover cars (rear)

It is awesome in the bends!

[Huntsman]

FWDRacer said:

Everyone loves an old Mini, right?

What are those wheels and tyres?

[theadman]

ATTAK Z said:

theadman said:

I can understand using the bore and the number of cylinders, but why would you divide it by 2.5 rather than 3 or 7 or any other random number? Does anyone know?

From Wiki:
The division by 2.5 in the RAC formula was supposed to account for the relatively low efficiency of early automotive engines and when first implemented in 1910 the RAC horsepower number was usually representative of the car's actual (brake) horsepower. However as engine design and technology progressed in the 1920s and 1930s these two figures began to drift apart, with an engine making much more power than its RAC rating (and the car's model name) suggested - even by 1924 the Austin Seven's 747cc engine produced 10.5 brake horsepower - 50 per cent more than its official rating.

Thanks ATTAK Z for clearing that one up!

Just to bring this back on topic here's one of mine...