RV Python - Vince replies!

[kitcarman]

grahambell said:

I do however know Den that the Mk 1 Sumo I got from you had all sorts of fundamental problems from an engine mount being in the wrong place and chassis brackets that wouldn't accept what they were supposedly designed to. . . . Now what was that you said about mass producing before the producer had verified the design? You keep asking who will sort out any problems that occur with a Python. Probably the same person who had to sort out the problems with my Mk 1 Sumo Den, namely the builder.

Ooooocccchhhhh! ! !
Graham, that was below the belt, mate!

That was 15 years ago and things have moved on. Until Python, Razer and Fib’s version of AF came along, the press has been encouraging people to expect better standards.

Secondly, you were obviously a very good customer in that most others made me take products back to my factory for rectification. I did so!

Thirdly, you’ve kindly not mentioned the very worse problem of the Sumo Mk1 which was that it’s chassis suffered a fundamental design flaw. The same flaw, as it happens, as is evident in the new Python chassis. Not that unusual 15 years ago, but something I had hoped was behind this industry now.

Wacky Racer said:

I agree these kind of things should not happen, but I am afraid this is part and parcel of the kit car industry. Twelve years ago, I built a Westfield, and I had to take the exhaust manifold back twice in a week, so it could be cut and welded at the right angle, a journey of 180 miles in total each time, .....

It was more prevalent 12 years ago than it is now, but mistakes are still made.

Ex-Biker said:

Like most queries (technical or otherwise), most companies utilise email to answer questions, so it doesn't matter where they are in the world.

I think there’s a world of a difference in getting physical as opposed to intellectual assistance though. Sri Lanka is a long way to go to get your manifold seen to. Who would pick-up the bus fare?

Den
BTW Thanks for the supportive messages! Was wondering where you’d got to for a while

[david_s]

I am a newcomer to this forum, indeed to the world of kitcars in general, but would like to make the following uninformed observations.

Nobody appears to dispute the essence of Kitcarmans arguments, but small details are discussed and debated endlessly. I certainly think that there is more than a grain of truth behind his tirades.

The Python would appear to have been advertised and its abilities praised in editorial before being built and tested, this must be questionable practice.

There has to be something suspicious about a publisher/editor endorsing a product in which they appear to have an undeclared vested interest. Editorial is generally perceived to carry more weight than advertising copy because it is seen to be independant. If it is not independant then it becomes worthless and raises suspicions as to ulterior motives, which appears to me to add credence to Kitcarmans position.

There would appear to be Kitcarman fans, and there are certainly Kitcarman detractors, but there does not seem to be anyone out there with a good word to say about Mr Filby. Or am I missing the point.

[Pies]

I think your hammer landed square on the nail

[Ex-Biker]

david_s said:

There would appear to be Kitcarman fans, and there are certainly Kitcarman detractors, but there does not seem to be anyone out there with a good word to say about Mr Filby. Or am I missing the point.

Well spotted that man!

I believe that is the one thing that Den can truly see from this forum.

[Wacky Racer]

Firstly, David S welcome to the KC forum

This is Den's point, he WANT'S Fibs to enter the discussion, but for whatever reason he chooses to remain silent, so Den is reduced to ranting away to himself.....

Regarding Fibs, anybody that can produce a tasty bit of kit like Amy Filby can't be all bad.

[kitcarman]

montypython said:

I'll post some pictures when I get it so Den can publish some of his 'theories'. Si.

Good to have you back in our midst, Si.

However, you’ve done it again!

The last time we conversed was following your post on the CRC forum in which you initially opened a thread simply announcing

Si said:

Hi, I’m Si and I’ve got a Python. . .

with your next post saying

Si said:

. . .contrary to reports I’ve read. . . .

The clear inference was that the existence of your Python proved those reports to be inaccurate. My response was to ask when and where you’d read such reports. You eventually responded, after a load of sarcastic waffle to the effect that your very existence was being questioned

Si said:

….July issue of Kit Car… I think... Don’t take much notice… confrontational place this.

. For the benefit of those on this forum, I’ve reproduced what was said in Kit Car (between June and Oct)

KitCar said:

Which Kit? EXPOSED! Last month I suggested that if Which Kit? wanted “to get more belief” it might try telling the truth. . . . As I shall demonstrate, Which Kit?’s own “dubious standards” are doing a perfectly good job at “tarnishing” its own reputation. . . . The editor’s lying about his competitor and his magazine’s market position and content are quite one thing. But like Pinocchio’s nose, the problem is growing. . . . In a curious reversal of roles Mr Filby finds himself at the head of no less than three kit car manufacturing “firms”. The resultant conflict of interests, combined with a lack of integrity is damaging to everybody with an interest in kit cars. Betrayal of Trust . . . . everybody has been affected. The distortion of the so called “comprehensive Cobra guide” and of the upcoming book is another lie (albeit by omission). . . . Desperate Times The rise of Kit Car knocked a hole in Which Kit?’s income. . . . Come 2002 . . . . Which Kit? announced that the Python is . . . . “Back with Bite”. Not coming soon or being developed. That was over a year ago, but to this day no such car exists. Which Kit?’s Interest. All three companies, purveying these three products, hail from the Which Kit? address. For the past year. . .coverage has been extensive. . . For Mr Filby to recover his integrity, he has to extricate himself . . . . When integrity is sold for profit. . . . the viability of the publication disappears. . . .

I then reproduced the Python advertisement and satirically pointed out what I envisaged as the experience of a serious enquirer

KitCar said:

They can’t answer your questions regarding precisely which model of “BMW V8 fits perfectly too”. . .It’s never been done, but you’re not told that. So you suggest . . . . taking a look. What are you told?. . . . the factory’s in Sri Lanka. In fact there’s probably no car in Sri Lanka either.

As I said, the above initially appeared in the June issue and correctly points to Fib’s involvement and the fact that the Python did not exist.

However, Si having taken delivery in October of a chassis (note CHASSIS) felt justified in casting aspersions upon what he’d read (as reproduced above). He said, in effect that the article was contrary to his experience. Yet his experience must have been that there wasn’t a car when he read the July article, that there wasn’t a car when he posted and that the appearance of his chassis is not in fact ‘contrary’ to anything I’d printed.

It occurred to me to be strange that Si had been a member of the CRC forum since Nov 2002, but hadn’t sought their opinion of his purchase. He simply burst onto the scene with his announcement, casting aspersions on Kit Car (without contacting us).

It later transpired that he was fronting a web site that claimed to be “the manual for” and “the Home of” the Python. That site contained a broadside attack on the specification of the Sumo and exhibited a lot of indications that it was commercially inspired.

I alleged that Si was fronting the commercial representation of Python on the web and was made to look foolish when nobody else accepted my viewpoint. However, it is still the only web presence for the car and Si hasn’t satisfactorily explained any of the above anomalies (although he has altered the site to remove many of them). Nor why he implicitly attacked the integrity of Kit Car in the knowledge that what was printed was accurate at the time and is still accurate in that there still isn’t a driving car.

Are you prepared to answer that question now Si? Why did you cast aspersions on Kit Car (without at least contacting us first)?

Also, are you prepared to elaborate on what “theories” I’ve published?

Den

[Ferg]

I'm not at all convinced that Si is anything other than a bloke who wants to build a Python (possibly because he had a BMW that he wanted to utilise, hence his choice of kit) and I can understand his defence of RV since his dealings with them are more recent than most and he's kind of committed and maybe they haven't pi55ed him off. I have a friend who knows Vince and I've never heard a bad word against him. I live maybe 10 miles from his house and the Nemesis (though not my kind of car) is quite a machine.
BUT I would be VERY interested to hear how Si feels about that guy Tim who ordered and was (probably still is) building an AF Sport before the demonstrator disappeared and it's designer and 'financier' were involved in an altercation involving the local constabulary.
Might lightning strike twice..........
Y'know, I hope not, but if it does I hope Den doesn't say 'I told you so', and maybe someone might stand up and says 'Thanks Den'.

[kitcarman]

Ferg,
I reckon you’re probably right.

Let me re-phrase my two questions to Si.

Have you seen a completed Python?

Am I wrong to say that Mr Filby’s involved with the Python?

If you do find things going wrong then please let us all know and we’ll (including me) help you out where we can.

Graham,

grahambell said:

Can't comment on whether or not a prototype has been built and driven because I don't know.

Forgive me Graham, but this is THE issue.

The Python could use Mercedes, Rolls Royce or Lada bits so far as I’m concerned. I’m genuinely not attacking the use of BMW. I’m not even specifically attacking the Python. I’m attacking the editorial integrity of Which Kit? because I believe it’s giving its readers a bum-steer for its own selfish financial reasons. As a result, some customers will be misled into purchasing what they otherwise might have avoided if they were given accurate information.

grahambell said:

Den, we all know you have a vendetta against Filby, and maybe justifiably so as there's no doubt some of his actions have been questionable to say the least, but that doesn't mean that anything Filby has any sort of connection with automatically has to be crap. You've repeatedly made your point at great length both here and in WK and had more than a little criticism for going over the top as a result, so maybe it's time to start adopting the 'less is more' approach to the Filby situation eh?

Two good points.

As to the first, I repeat that I’ve not said that Fib’s projects will automatically be crap. In fact of the three projects I exposed from June onwards, none exist in the form advertised for the past two years. One has reverted to its rightful owner (Dave Pepper), one has been shelved (Razer) although is still being advertised, whilst this Python isn’t existent in a complete sense and can neither be said to be good nor crap. Fib’s is saying that it’s good, whilst I’m saying that the jury is out (in print) whilst on this forum I’m willingly being drawn into all kinds of side arguments as to why I believe that there will be a lot of tears shed by those who get duped. I’ve also discussed many potential practical and legal difficulties in that eventuality with dealing with someone in this country who technically can deny culpability and seeking redress in Sri Lanka. Convenient for Fib’s, eh?

As to your second point, I’ll quote a newbie who’s just picked up on this argument (welcome on-board David )

david_s said:

Nobody appears to dispute the essence of Kitcarmans arguments, but small details are discussed and debated endlessly. I certainly think that there is more than a grain of truth behind his tirades.

I’ll also point out that in respect to Python, the text reproduced on this thread is the full extent of what’s been published in its regard. Aproximately a ¼ page per month from June to October and ½ page (with only about 1/8 page of balancing and objective text concerning which nobody, save AndyCanham, has complained) from December until further notice.

My point is that within Kit Car I have adopted the 'less is more' approach. On this forum, so long as PetrolTed is happy, I’ll post my detailed responses to any criticisms levelled at me. Also, as is apparent from the quote opening this post, I’ll continue to try to aid the ‘penny’ to drop in the minds of anybody who hasn’t comprehended the issue at the heart of my campaign. That issue being integrity of journalism.

Until it’s possible to trust the magazines, I don’t believe this industry shall prosper. Pilgrim was one of a string of businesses to suffer the effect of Fib’s. In fact I believe that all businesses suffer when others (in competition) are singled out for preferential and unwarranted praise.

I’ll get there!!!

Den

[grahambell]

kitcarman said:

grahambell said: I do however know Den that the Mk 1 Sumo I got from you had all sorts of fundamental problems from an engine mount being in the wrong place and chassis brackets that wouldn't accept what they were supposedly designed to. . . . Now what was that you said about mass producing before the producer had verified the design? You keep asking who will sort out any problems that occur with a Python. Probably the same person who had to sort out the problems with my Mk 1 Sumo Den, namely the builder. Ooooocccchhhhh! ! ! Graham, that was below the belt, mate!

Sorry Den, but I felt it had to be said. To be fair though you were obviously aware of the problems when I told you and were already developing the Mk 2 Sumo.

kitcarman said:

Thirdly, you’ve kindly not mentioned the very worse problem of the Sumo Mk1 which was that it’s chassis suffered a fundamental design flaw. The same flaw, as it happens, as is evident in the new Python chassis. Not that unusual 15 years ago, but something I had hoped was behind this industry now.

Wouldn't be referring to flex by any chance Den...? Flex has always been a problem with ladder frame chassis as they're not good torsionally. It is however possible to stiffen things up by attaching a nice rigid structure (ie. stiff bodyshell) on top. And let's not forget that one of the best respected names in the fake snake game (Dax) use a ladder frame chassis.

It of course remains to be seen how well the Python fares in this (or any other) respect.

Have had another e-mail from Vince saying that he's far too busy building Pythons to enter into any discussions here, but he intends to have a Python at the Stafford show, so let's wait and see.

[Pies]

So vince has time to e-mail you,but no time to post here personally

[kitcarman]

Pies,
Astute point you made there mate

Graham,

grahambell said:

kitcarman said: Ooooocccchhhhh! ! ! Graham, that was below the belt, mate! Sorry Den, but I felt it had to be said. To be fair though you were obviously aware of the problems when I told you and were already developing the Mk 2 Sumo.

Graham,
You’re right to say that these things needed saying, if only to drive home the point that I have first hand experience in the matters that I’m commenting upon.

As the name might suggest, the Sumo Mk 1 was my first attempt at Cobra design. I made only 100 of them and rued the day that I put it on sale before testing it.

grahambell said:

kitcarman said: Thirdly, you’ve kindly not mentioned the very worse problem of the Sumo Mk1 which was that it’s chassis suffered a fundamental design flaw. The same flaw, as it happens, as is evident in the new Python chassis. Not that unusual 15 years ago, but something I had hoped was behind this industry now. Wouldn't be referring to flex by any chance Den...? Flex has always been a problem with ladder frame chassis as they're not good torsionally. It is however possible to stiffen things up by attaching a nice rigid structure (ie. stiff bodyshell) on top. And let's not forget that one of the best respected names in the fake snake game (Dax) use a ladder frame chassis.

To be fair, back in 1988 it wasn’t that bad in comparison with the many kits available. However it was sadly lacking torsional rigidity which meant that it was awful to drive over rough terrain and needed very soft springs which severely limited its handling. In fact whatever springs were fitted didn’t matter too much because the chassis twisted its way over bumps. Truly awfuldriving experience. Those Mk1’s haunted me for the next decade.

The problem was that the chassis front sections were built in two halves (like the two railway carriages mentioned in the chassis thread). Connected at the front only by a flat 50 x 5 mm bar. With the car built there was nothing that could be done about it. The Python has exactly the same flaw, in that it’s constructed with the same flat bar across the front, which builders won’t even know the significance of until it’s far too late.

There’s a deeper problem with the Python in that it’s not being sold as a basic, low-cost Cortina based ‘kit car’ (as the Sumo Mk 1 was), but as a proven modern thoroughbred

PythonAd said:

The only difference is that modern technology has been applied to the construction of the body and chassis – both are now lighter and stronger. Performance is higher, handling is better. . . .

Sorry, call me jaundiced if you like, but I simply cannot buy into these claims knowing what I know from 18 years of Cobra production in which time I’ve made more Cobras than anybody else. There shall be sobs and tears, and I have not the slightest doubt about it.

Finally, the Sumo was subject to the independent reviews of all three magazines of the day. They all criticised its handling and performance. Which Kit? went as far as saying that it suffered from ‘bump steer’. People made their choice to purchase with the benefit of such advice and opinion.

Will the Python be submitted to such objective scrutiny? Or will there be a cover-up as was the case with Dave’s prototype AF Sports?

As I said, the issue is one of integrity more than of technicality.

Den

[kitcarman]

gdr said:

If there is really a problem with Python ads, would it not be best alert the Advertising Standards Agency rather than bitch about it here?

One of my problems of 6 months ago was that I’d tried to get the ASA to act, both in relation to protecting my business from the false claims of Which Kit? of itself. Also in protecting consumers from what I saw as false advertising claims.

I made a number of complaints. The following link shows the resulting adjudications.

www.asa.org.uk/index.asp

Look under media, then magazines, then ‘w’ and you’ll find adjudications saying that Which Kit? were to stop claiming to be ‘biggest selling’ and Which Kit? t/a Unique Autocraft were to desist from advertising a new product using photos of an old product.

I stopped complaining when I realised that the ASA didn’t have the teeth (or possibly the will) to stop a determined publisher from publishing his own adverts. The usual mechanism is that they tell publishers to refuse advertising they’ve adjudicated against. They evidently couldn’t cope with a publisher (who’s also the advertiser) who ignores their adjudications.

It was 5 months after a favourable adjudication (after 6 months of investigation) that I lost patience and published the Pinocchio Fibly picture. That did the trick! Fib’s hasn’t since repeated his claim to being biggest selling or to having 50,000 readers.

However he has continued to make other claims and continued to use old photo’s to promote new (non-existent) products. Why else would one use an old photo?

I’d very much appreciate it if some of you were to fill out the ASA on-line complaints form in relation to the claims of the Python.

For a start, there’s the photograph which is misleading the reader into believing that the Python advertised is the one shown in the photograph. Which Kit? have already been told that’s wrong (albeit in respect to AF Sports).

Then there are the claims that “body and chassis – both are now lighter and stronger”, “BMW V8 fits perfectly too.”, “Also available with Jaguar suspension. . .”. The rules are very, very simple. Any claim has to be verifiable in writing before the advert is placed. You simply express concern to the ASA concerning such claims and they ask ‘the advertiser’ to give the evidence that he’s already got (well he must have because he’s a professional man of complete integrity and knows the ASA CAP code off by heart).

With a few of you asking questions like these, it will take the pressure off me. Will also force Fib's to put up (the evidence) or shut up.

What I'm saying is that gdr has put the ball in the back of the net

Den

[kitcarman]

To save you looking them up.

ASA said:

Date: 8th January 2003Media: Magazine Sector: Publishing Complaint: Kit Car Magazine objected to a magazine advertisement, for Which Kit car magazine, that stated "... The BEST place to buy or sell a kit car is with Britain's biggest selling kitcar magazine ...". The complainants challenged the claim "Britain's biggest selling kitcar magazine". Codes Section: 2.6, 3.1, 7.1, 19.1, 19.2 (Ed 10) Adjudication: Complaint upheld The advertisers said they might be willing to amend the claim but they refused to respond to the Authority in writing and send substantiation for the claim. The Authority was concerned by the advertisers' refusal to respond and apparent disregard for the Codes. The Authority noted the advertisers had not substantiated that they were Britain's biggest-selling kitcar magazine. It reminded the advertisers of their responsibility to hold substantiation to support advertised claims and to send it to the Authority on request. The Authority told the advertisers not to use the claim again unless they held, and could send to the Authority on request, documentary evidence to substantiate it. The Authority asked the Committee of Advertising Practice to inform its members of the problem with the advertisers.

ASA said:

Date: 9th April 2003 Media: Magazine Sector: Motoring Complaint: Kit Car Magazine objected to two advertisements, for a kit car, in Which Kit? magazine. The first advertisement included pictures of the original AF Sports kit car and the second included pictures of the copy only. Both advertisements included a testimonial from Monty Watkins of Which Kit? magazine that read "The most beautiful roadster ever offered in component form". The first advertisement stated "... can also accept V8 power ... optional BMW 3-series based version available late 2002 ... also available based on the same chassis - the more aggressively styled PF Roadster ... Unique Autocraft, 1 Howard Road, Reigate, Surrey ...". The second advertisement stated "... optional BMW 3-series based version available early 2003 ...". The complainants challenged whether: 1. the first advertisement was misleading because it included photographs of the original kit car to promote the advertisers' copy kit car; 2. the testimonial referred to the original kit car, not the copy kit car; 3. permission was given by Monty Watkins to use the testimonial; 4. the copy kit car could accept V8 power, because the original version could not; 5. an optional BMW 3 Series version would be available for the copy kit car early in 2003; 6. the PF Roadster was available and 7. Unique Autocraft was a trading business because the contact details were those of the magazine's publishers, Which Kit? Codes Section: 2.6, 3.1, 7.1, 14.1, 14.2, 17.1, 17.2 (Ed 10) Adjudication: Complaint upheld The advertisers did not respond to the Authority's enquires. The Authority was concerned by the advertisers' lack of response, which it considered a breach of the Codes. The Authority reminded the advertisers of the responsibility to respond to its enquiries and asked them to do so promptly in future. Because the advertisers had not substantiated the claims, the Authority told the advertisers to withdraw the advertisement and asked the Committee of Advertising Practice to advise its members of the problem with the advertisers.

ASA said:

Date: 9th April 2003 Media: Magazine Sector: Publishing Complaint: Kit Cars International objected to three magazine advertisements for a kit car magazine. The first advertisement, in the January 2003 issue, claimed "... Which Kit? ... The BEST place to buy or sell a kit car is with Britain's best kitcar magazine. Reach up to 50,000 potential buyers every month in the magazine that's NO.1 for selling kit cars ...". The second advertisement, also in the January 2003 issue, was an offer to buy a book entitled 'The Complete Guide to Kit Cars' headed "THE FULL MONTY KIT CAR GUIDE". It read "... Difficult thing, in the kit car business, to narrow down every last model that just might be available if you plead with the supplier ... THE UTTERLY COMPLETE GUIDE TO ALL KIT CARS". The third advertisement, in the February 2003 issue, claimed "With Which Kit? you have the best possible chance of selling your car ...". The complainants challenged the claims 1. "The best place to buy or sell a kit car is with Britain's best kit car magazine", "With Which Kit? you have the best possible chance of selling your car" and "you'll stand the best chance of success here"; 2. "Reach up to 50,000 potential buyers every month in the magazine that's NO.1 for selling kit cars" and 3. "the utterly complete guide to all kit cars" and "THE FULL MONTY KIT CAR GUIDE" and "every last model that might just be available ... they're all there". Codes Section: 2.6, 3.1, 7.1, 19.1, 19.2 (Ed 10) Adjudication: Complaint upheld The advertisers did not respond to the Authority's enquires. The Authority was concerned by the advertisers' lack of response, which it considered a breach of the Codes. The Authority reminded the advertisers of their responsibility to respond to its enquiries and asked them to do so promptly in future. Because the advertisers had not substantiated any of the claims, the Authority told the advertisers to withdraw the advertisement and asked the Committee of Advertising Practice to advise its members of the problem with the advertisers.

[gdr]

OK Den, I should have known better than to ask that question! But fair enough, you have gone through the normal channels with your complaint.
Seems that PF tactic of never responding to anything at all, be it ASA or KC jibes is quite successful though.

[grahambell]

Pies said:

So vince has time to e-mail you,but no time to post here personally

Well if he started posting here he'd probably feel compelled to start repsonding to every post Den makes - in which case he'd never have any time to do any work...

As for the strength of the Python's chassis, like I said, we'll have to wait and see. It doesn't actually have quite the same flaw as Den mentioned afflicted the Mk 1 Sumo chassis, because while that used standard Cortina suspension, the Python uses rocker arms with inboard coilovers, similar to the set-up used on the Stylus/Fury.

This effectively reduces the twisting loads by feeding shock loadings through the suspension into the chassis down and centrally rather than pushing a corner upwards as is the case with outboard suspension.

Consider that and the fact that Vince does have some knowledge and experience of chassis design and that could make all the difference. Couldn't it Den? Come on - be honest now. After all, your name's not Filby...

Of course whether the Python turns out to good or not will make no difference to the fact that Filby has being pulling a con job by using his magazine to give rave reviews to cars that they haven't driven just so that he can make money out of them.

As Den says, the real issue here isn't the Python, it's integrity - and the fact that Filby doesn't appear to have any.

[Pies]

I'm not going to start debating weather a car that has yet to be built is good or bad, as a true opinion can not be given

[kitcarman]

Graham, Pies and gdr, thanks!!!!

You all appear to have seen the problem.
In literally every article I read in Which Kit? I see some form of distortion which appears aimed at feathering its own nest or misleading its readers through what Which Kit? describes as

WhichKit said:

. . . . a constant brainwashing misinformation process which unfortunately the gullible public will believe.

The blatant claims, like those following represent what I believe is the tip of a much larger iceberg.

PythonAd said:

The only difference is that modern technology has been applied to the construction of the body and chassis – both are now lighter and stronger. Performance is higher, handling is better. . . .

Unfortunately for me, my motivation has been questioned resulting in:-

david_s said:

Nobody appears to dispute the essence of Kitcarmans arguments, but small details are discussed and debated endlessly. . . . .

I believe that it’s a real pity that that it wasn’t possible for us to get beyond the ‘small details’ such that we could discuss the ‘big picture’.
So what is the ‘big picture’. I reckon that from its opening words to its classified section there are distortions for commercial reasons. In between, even the material that is probably factually accurate appears to me to be chosen according to some form of commercial deal or off-the-record allegiance probably based on Fib’s getting a car or exclusive advertising or something to make his nest more comfortable . The ASA expressed their view of my complaint about the classifieds, whilst I employed Pinocchio Fibly to drive the point home. Just looking at the other end of the magazine one reads this kind of twaddle

WhichKit said:

You know what? Sales are currently buzzing, increasing rapidly and generally looking good for the future.(Sept issue p5)

We all know that wasn’t exactly truthful, but that isn’t my point. My point was expressed as follows

KitCar said:

Which Kit? EXPOSED! Last month I suggested that if Which Kit? wanted “to get more belief” it might try telling the truth. . . . . . . The editor’s lying about his competitor and his magazine’s market position and content are quite one thing. But like Pinocchio’s nose, the problem is growing. . . . . . . . . In a curious reversal of roles Mr Filby finds himself at the head of no less than three kit car manufacturing “firms”. The resultant conflict of interests, combined with a lack of integrity is damaging to everybody with an interest in kit cars. For Mr Filby to recover his integrity, he has to extricate himself . . . . When integrity is sold for profit. . . . the viability of the publication disappears. . . .

My point being that he’s not reforming and he’s not making any attempt “to extricate himself” so his publication IMHO is not viable.
I can’t understand why his magazine sales haven’t fallen further than they have.

Graham,
You’re quite right to say that I’m not Fib’s and I trust that you trust that the normal editorial of Kit Car is not interfered with by me. Furthermore, I’ve not expressed any views either way on the Python (save that its advertising is misleadimg ). The point being that Kit Car’s integrity is intact and all its options remain open. If Ian Hyne is afforded opportunity to test the Python his opinion and experience shall be reported honestly without interference from me. Indeed if I were to drive the vehicle and it were good, I’d say so.

Den


>> Edited by kitcarman on Saturday 6th December 14:30

[Ferg]

Graham,
I'm not an engineer or a chassis designer, but my School Physics tells me that the suspension loads are acting upwards at the pivot point of the rocker arm. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry.....I haven't been to school since 1980.

[kitcarman]

Graham and Ferg,

I’d add that the forces that lead to ‘twist’ are generated by uneven road surfaces (and other lesser forces mentioned by me in ‘the chassis con’ thread).

Statically, the best way to imagine this force is to imagine what’s happening to the chassis when one front wheel is parked on the curb whilst the other 3 are on the road. Basically half the weight of the car is forcing one side up whilst the other half of the weight is pushing the other side down.

The chassis is being twisted by the cars weight. Dynamically the weight is increased if that same curb is hit at speed (I won’t go into the physics because we all know that we get a bigger jolt at speed compared to slowly. That’s why we slow down for obstacles such as sleeping policemen ).

My point is that the chassis will be subject to the upward and downward forces acting on the tyres. The only item to resist that twisting motion (torsion) at the front of the Python is a thin strip of flat bar which connects one side of the chassis to the other. It didn’t do the job on a Sumo Mk1 and won’t IMHO do the job on the Python.

Furthermore, it matters not, so far as I can see, how those forces are fed into the chassis structure whilst that structure is manufactured in two halves jointed only by a thin strip.

Graham is right to say that the body might lend strength to the chassis. However, it didn’t significantly help in a Sumo Mk1 (and that body was as stiff as any I’ve seen). Furthermore, for the body to lend itself to the structure it has to be fixed in some better way than the traditional 8 fixing bolts technique. There’s nothing that I’ve seen that suggests that the Python body will be fixed to anything other than a thin metal strip at the front (which will require clever holes to be drilled through it).

Not that it will do any good, but I’m very curious to see Si’s pictures, particularly if they show

PythonAd said:

Craftsman-made GRP bodywork using polyurethane foam sandwich techniques to increase strength and rigidity whilst reducing weight.

So, my point is that I agree with Ferg and still stand by my earlier warning. Somebody will end up in tears, I reckon.

However, I’m happy to wait for the outcome. In the meantime, I’m warning people to take the advertising claims with a large pinch of salt.

Den

[vince rvd]

kitcarman said:

Graham, Thanks for your efforts. You imply that I won’t like what Vince has to say, but in fact there are no stings or surprises in any of it. Very predictable in fact! . He’s confirmed much of what I’ve said in print, hasn’t addressed many of the substantive practical issues I’ve alluded to on this forum. Whether or not the name was legitimately acquired doesn’t change the fact that this new Python cannot IMHO justify claims of the original being applied to it because, as Vince admits, it’s a new design. So that we understand what I’ve said, I’ve reproduced the text of the advertisement which gave rise to the Python brochure thread. KitCar said: Warning This product is presented as a new development of an existing model, but nothing could be further from the truth. RV Dynamics had nothing to do with the original Python, which was an excellent product as described. Save that they’re both Cobra replicas, the new Python bears no technical resemblance to the old. The new Python is purportedly being made in Sri Lanka using a newly designed, but as yet untested, chassis to which a body from new moulds, as yet unchecked in respect to fit, will be fitted over BMW mechanics, but as yet untried. Follow Good Advice This product is exclusively promoted by, advertised in and sold through the offices of Which Kit? magazine. Please follow that (and this) magazine’s advice by not parting with your money until after you’ve seen the actual fit and finish and taken a test drive. What Hasn’t Been Said We’re not saying that a BMW based Cobra cannot be produced. We simply say that one hasn’t yet been produced but it is presented, in one particular magazine, as if it had. We simply wish to avoid our readers being used as unsuspecting test dummies for prototype development. Rather than take issue with what Vince has told you. I’ll initially turn the table and ask him if he has any complaints: concerning what appears in print. I’m bracing myself. I dare say that there shall be points that Vince would like to raise too. I’m all ears Den

Hi DEN or should i call you "DIRTY DEN " as you seem the have a large amount of DIRT around you and all your e-mails !!!!!
I take it that you are the same man that put gerry from hawk cars in the nemesis the first time it was tested and i had no idear that he made cars and also was trying to sell testoroser bodys ???
and then to give the nemesis a good rightup all bar one part where jerry slaged off the chassis for shaking at the door post ,which was due to the front wheel where varsty out of balance!!!!! which jerry new about, which was later totaly taken back by peter coxhead a few months later once we had the car on the road !!
Filby has never as fare as i know used the compertition to test some ones car !! the damage was done ,if you ask any one how has driven the nemesis or the Bugrat they will tell you what they think and i have never had one bad comment to this day !!!!!

the moulds are from the guys at harlow and are totaly proven !!

yes the chassis is new and only bench tested ,never clamed i was not !!

But could never build a cobra that weighed more than the V12 jag powered Nemesis ,as a car with no roof not much in the way of doors and trim ,Can not weigh more than a car with all the toys that come in a GT car ???

and as the chassis stop production in 93 they used dolamite parts and MGB bits ,so if had to alter it best to start with a cleen sheet !!

as my back ground is AIR CRAFT and not tractors i went on the path of light weight .

as they say the proof is in the pudding ! we will have to see if you are right or like most people think you are talking DIRT !!!

IF YOU WANT TO COME AND SEE ME HEAR IN Sri Lanka (by the way is 29c hear at moment) YOU ARE VERY WELCOME !!!

I can show you all the name plates on the moulds and jigs for Unique Autocraft!!

If there are spelling mistakes please do not make to much of this as i am Dyslexic !! and much better at making cars than writting e-mails , that can not be said for DEN as dont think he is Dyslexic ? not by the number he is writting!!!!!!!!!

wont be replying to any more of this as I know the truth And have no resion to keep all this up have so many cars and chassis to make !!!

Vince Wright, Orizio Motors Limited, Block 21 Ratmalana indutrial city Ratmalana Colombo Sri Lanka (R V Dynamics UK)