Another mystery car
Discussion
MatthewBarnett said:
Hi there - I am the owner of the of what was the orange car.
Hi Matthew,good to hear from you and nice to know the car's in good hands.
I've been wondering how much larger than the blue car yours was, so can I just check the wheelbase and track measurements with you.
The Fords seem to have wheelbases of 87", 90" and 94", so from what you have said, it sounds like it's the 94"?
Do you know the front and rear track?
Thanks.
[quote=Sorted]
Not yet, but will be at some point. Concept was to morph a Griffith with a DB5 saloon utilising a crate engine and Art Morrison chassis. Wanted the car to be politically incorrect in concept. Big engine, poor fuel consumption etc so to complete designed front of bonnet to literally look like a 'hood'.
[/quote]
You certainly have a good eye. Your treatment of the rear perfectly captures the flow of the body curves, I'd love to see someone put that together. I am guessing you would virtually construct the buck, for the roof section and CNC it out of some sort of expanded polymer thingy?
Not yet, but will be at some point. Concept was to morph a Griffith with a DB5 saloon utilising a crate engine and Art Morrison chassis. Wanted the car to be politically incorrect in concept. Big engine, poor fuel consumption etc so to complete designed front of bonnet to literally look like a 'hood'.
Edited by Sorted on Monday 15th April 21:13
[/quote]
You certainly have a good eye. Your treatment of the rear perfectly captures the flow of the body curves, I'd love to see someone put that together. I am guessing you would virtually construct the buck, for the roof section and CNC it out of some sort of expanded polymer thingy?
[quote=Sorted]
Either wood sheets or a machined body for fibre glass... or could go metal as well and do a more manual method for curves. Many options.
Metal to be covered for glass body shortly pics below.
.
[/quote]
That body buck looks like a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO.
So you're making a fibreglass Ferrari GTO?
Either wood sheets or a machined body for fibre glass... or could go metal as well and do a more manual method for curves. Many options.
Metal to be covered for glass body shortly pics below.
.
[/quote]
That body buck looks like a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO.
So you're making a fibreglass Ferrari GTO?
borrani72 said:
Hi Matthew,
good to hear from you and nice to know the car's in good hands.
I've been wondering how much larger than the blue car yours was, so can I just check the wheelbase and track measurements with you.
The Fords seem to have wheelbases of 87", 90" and 94", so from what you have said, it sounds like it's the 94"?
Do you know the front and rear track?
Thanks.
The cars a bit burried so I have only roughly stuck a tape measure on it. 90" wheel base centres front to back about right same as ford pop sit up and beg, width to outside of tyres/wheels around 54"good to hear from you and nice to know the car's in good hands.
I've been wondering how much larger than the blue car yours was, so can I just check the wheelbase and track measurements with you.
The Fords seem to have wheelbases of 87", 90" and 94", so from what you have said, it sounds like it's the 94"?
Do you know the front and rear track?
Thanks.
RDMcG said:
For what its worth, I am astonished at the negative comments on Borrani72.
I do not know this poster, nor have had any correspondence, but have been impressed from the beginning with a very intelligent, factual, quantitative review of the possible car.
Anyway, the level of research has enriched this post immeasurably.
Spot on, please no more of this slagging match, the speculation, exploring all avenues is the only way forward. Nobody has to waste time exploring somebody else's theories if they see no merit.I do not know this poster, nor have had any correspondence, but have been impressed from the beginning with a very intelligent, factual, quantitative review of the possible car.
Anyway, the level of research has enriched this post immeasurably.
mbwoy84 said:
Or this one maybe?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Specialist-Sports-Cars-Br...
The car could have been around when he was compiling that book. Also written books on TVR and MG.
I have this book, nothing like it in the book though. I don't know if anybody has contact details for Peter Filby the author of this book, he was in period a leading authority on British Specilaist Sports Carshttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Specialist-Sports-Cars-Br...
The car could have been around when he was compiling that book. Also written books on TVR and MG.
MatthewBarnett said:
The cars a bit burried so I have only roughly stuck a tape measure on it. 90" wheel base centres front to back about right same as ford pop sit up and beg, width to outside of tyres/wheels around 54"
Many thanks Matthew. Your garage sounds a lot like mine 
Quite a bit larger than the blue car - the wheelbase is about a foot shorter (in my opinion
) [quote=Sorted] With respect he put up a set of coordinates with total confidence that were proved to be totally wrong. Then mocked a theory as being a bit early for April fools day with no substantiating proof. Comes up with questions and theories on a daily and reactionary basis. B72 is a wizard with a pencil, but as a person to solve this mystery he is hopeless.
Anyway. A few days in and still he hasn't come up with any killer demolition of the Alpine solution.
Perhaps it's time you stepped away from the thread for a while, comments like those are really unnecessary.piper said:
RDMcG said:
For what its worth, I am astonished at the negative comments on Borrani72.
I do not know this poster, nor have had any correspondence, but have been impressed from the beginning with a very intelligent, factual, quantitative review of the possible car.
Anyway, the level of research has enriched this post immeasurably.
Spot on, please no more of this slagging match, the speculation, exploring all avenues is the only way forward. Nobody has to waste time exploring somebody else's theories if they see no merit.I do not know this poster, nor have had any correspondence, but have been impressed from the beginning with a very intelligent, factual, quantitative review of the possible car.
Anyway, the level of research has enriched this post immeasurably.
Anyway. A few days in and still he hasn't come up with any killer demolition of the Alpine solution.
TonyRPH said:
borrani72, _Sorted_
@borrani72 - your silly cartoons above are the equivalent of throwing your toys out of your cot - there's no need for it.
Enough said.
I think you should be directing the soothing lotion towards Mr Sorted's increasingly hostile and confronational lines in the sand rather than Borranis quite obvious attempt at lightening things up a bit.@borrani72 - your silly cartoons above are the equivalent of throwing your toys out of your cot - there's no need for it.
Enough said.
This is all getting a bit Celtic vs Rangers sadly. IMHO the jury is still out and conjecture is still on the table. I see with my eyes not "computer says no" and that hump-backed slab-sided elongated-windowed wide-wheelbased CAD model is NOT what I see in that old photograph and never was, whereas Borranis sketches most definitely are.
I think a lot of people on here are resisting posting their opinion either way for fear of offending others who have poured time effort and money into this, but the fun is being spoiled. There is no need for a show of hands either way, and no "solution" until something very positive turns up.
Loose_Cannon said:
I think a lot of people on here are resisting posting their opinion either way for fear of offending others who have poured time effort and money into this, but the fun is being spoiled. There is no need for a show of hands either way, and no "solution" until something very positive turns up.
My opinion, which I have stated before, is that even if Sorted and/or B72 arrive at a millimetre perfect model, and build a full-size version, we still won't know what it is.The conjecture about what the front screen is, what sort of doors they are and whether or not there is a bootlid are meaningless because answering any or all of those questions will not cause anyone to say "Oh, now I recognise it. I thought it didn't have gullwing doors, so didn't recognise any other part of it."
Whether or not the fins look like an Alpine, or a DS250 or a Cadillac Eldorado will not help to identify the car.
I admire the expertise of Sorted and B72, and am impressed by the time they continue to devote to this, but I feel it's a bit of a red herring because if nobody recognises the car from a photo, they're not going to recognise it from a model.
I believe the answer is out there, but it'll be in an archive somewhere, because few people actually involved at the time will still be available.
I can't remember if it's been covered or not, but why did the artist who painted the street scene change the blue car to a taxi? That wasn't an accident...
Doofus said:
I can't remember if it's been covered or not, but why did the artist who painted the street scene change the blue car to a taxi? That wasn't an accident...
I assume the artist just wanted to paint a typical London scene, in which a black taxi is more fitting than an unusual blue sportscar.Loose_Cannon said:
...I see with my eyes not "computer says no" and that hump-backed slab-sided elongated-windowed wide-wheelbased CAD model is NOT what I see in that old photograph and never was, whereas Borranis sketches most definitely are.
I agree with this. However, I believe there is some fantastic work coming in from all angles that keeps me coming back to this thread. Long may the interpretations and theories continue! I can't help but feel that the wheels, where they sit within the arches and the general proportions of what we see in the photograph indicate that we are looking at something smaller than an Alpine, but this is just my opinion.
In an ideal world, Sorted and B72 combine forces, accurately model the body and then Mr Barnett recreates it, fits it to his shortened chassis and the car lives again (sort of). Maybe then someone would see and recognise it...
Edited by Swedishjames on Wednesday 17th April 12:55
No ideas for a name said:
I've got that Filby book, nothing in there.The one above is in my local library so it's on order even if its just to find out more about the author.
piper said:
RDMcG said:
For what its worth, I am astonished at the negative comments on Borrani72.
I do not know this poster, nor have had any correspondence, but have been impressed from the beginning with a very intelligent, factual, quantitative review of the possible car.
Anyway, the level of research has enriched this post immeasurably.
Spot on, please no more of this slagging match, the speculation, exploring all avenues is the only way forward. Nobody has to waste time exploring somebody else's theories if they see no merit.I do not know this poster, nor have had any correspondence, but have been impressed from the beginning with a very intelligent, factual, quantitative review of the possible car.
Anyway, the level of research has enriched this post immeasurably.
And also, thanks to those who have remained neutral and called for an end to silly arguments. I do totally agree, and hope I haven't fuelled them unneccesarily myself. I know I made a couple of little jokes in response to comments directed at me, but nothing nasty.
I certainly didn't come here for an argument, or to upset anyone, but rather, like pretty much everyone else here, simply out of curiousity.
Doofus said:
My opinion, which I have stated before, is that even if Sorted and/or B72 arrive at a millimetre perfect model, and build a full-size version, we still won't know what it is.
The conjecture about what the front screen is, what sort of doors they are and whether or not there is a bootlid are meaningless because answering any or all of those questions will not cause anyone to say "Oh, now I recognise it. I thought it didn't have gullwing doors, so didn't recognise any other part of it."
Whether or not the fins look like an Alpine, or a DS250 or a Cadillac Eldorado will not help to identify the car.
I admire the expertise of Sorted and B72, and am impressed by the time they continue to devote to this, but I feel it's a bit of a red herring because if nobody recognises the car from a photo, they're not going to recognise it from a model.
I believe the answer is out there, but it'll be in an archive somewhere, because few people actually involved at the time will still be available.
This is it in a nutshell. Best post for a while ... The conjecture about what the front screen is, what sort of doors they are and whether or not there is a bootlid are meaningless because answering any or all of those questions will not cause anyone to say "Oh, now I recognise it. I thought it didn't have gullwing doors, so didn't recognise any other part of it."
Whether or not the fins look like an Alpine, or a DS250 or a Cadillac Eldorado will not help to identify the car.
I admire the expertise of Sorted and B72, and am impressed by the time they continue to devote to this, but I feel it's a bit of a red herring because if nobody recognises the car from a photo, they're not going to recognise it from a model.
I believe the answer is out there, but it'll be in an archive somewhere, because few people actually involved at the time will still be available.
All this arguing over whether the wheelbase is 5mm out, etc, all a waste of time to me ...
_Sorted_ says he has proved it was Alpine based. A lot of things might marry up, but nothing is proved ...
borrani72 said:
Thanks for your support guys, and to others who have made similar comments. Much appreciated.
And also, thanks to those who have remained neutral and called for an end to silly arguments. I do totally agree, and hope I haven't fuelled them unneccesarily myself. I know I made a couple of little jokes in response to comments directed at me, but nothing nasty.
I certainly didn't come here for an argument, or to upset anyone, but rather, like pretty much everyone else here, simply out of curiousity.
I think you have done sterling work and I have not bothered with the arguments. All of your postings have been supported by a significant amount of empirical work rather than opinions. Very impressive and positive contributions.And also, thanks to those who have remained neutral and called for an end to silly arguments. I do totally agree, and hope I haven't fuelled them unneccesarily myself. I know I made a couple of little jokes in response to comments directed at me, but nothing nasty.
I certainly didn't come here for an argument, or to upset anyone, but rather, like pretty much everyone else here, simply out of curiousity.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff