Another mystery car

[MatthewBarnett]

[quote=borrani72]



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.

Wheel base orage car approx 90" width to outside of wheels 54" measured roughly 15" crossply ttyres]

[borrani72]

Pantechnicon said:

Not deliberately trying to be awkward but how do we know the mystery car has a glass windscreen ?
Too many things are being treated as facts for which none of us have any proof.

It's a legal requirement that the windscreen must be glass. The other windows can be plastic.

I read somewhere that it's because perspex smears when wet, impeding vision, though aircraft have perspex 'screens, as far as I know......

[borrani72]

MatthewBarnett said:

borrani72 said:

Wheel base orange car approx 90" width to outside of wheels 54" measured roughly 15" crossply tyres]

Is the track the same front and rear?

I've input the basic dimensions and can't get a proper match between the wheels/ track width on the CAD model and that in the photo's.

It looks as though the back axle is a few inches narrower. If you can get at it, it would be interesting to see whether what I think the CAD model is telling me matches the real car.


The windscreen is shorter front to back than the Minx rear window (ie more upright), so I'm thinking it's possibly a Vauxhall F-Type Victor windscreen.



I'll post a few images once I'm a little further along with it, but at the moment it looks like the car is about 100mm lower at scuttle height, as well as having the wider track and longer wheelbase.

[Pantechnicon]

borrani72 said:

It's a legal requirement that the windscreen must be glass. The other windows can be plastic.

I read somewhere that it's because perspex smears when wet, impeding vision, though aircraft have perspex 'screens, as far as I know......

Legality is not really proof though is it,
This triumph lemans has according to what I’ve read a plastic wrap around windscreen

[thegreenhell]

borrani72 said:

It's a legal requirement that the windscreen must be glass. The other windows can be plastic.

I read somewhere that it's because perspex smears when wet, impeding vision, though aircraft have perspex 'screens, as far as I know......

It's a legal requirement now, but was it back then? It's also now a legal requirement for windscreens to be laminated, and a rear screen from another car would not have been. They may have been able to get away with it back then, but not now.

[borrani72]

True, it is possible, though very uncommon practice.



Bill Dobson's Brigantis, which if I remember correctly was Jaguar based, I think had a plastic windscreen.








I've been experimenting further with the photo-matching of the CAD model, so should be able to see how closely the Minx glass matches.

As Sorted scanned the item, I've got accurate reference data for the shape.


Does anybody have a set of blueprints for the Vauxhall F-Type Victor? I'd like to try modelling the glass to compare with the orange car.

[borrani72]

thegreenhell said:

borrani72 said:

It's a legal requirement that the windscreen must be glass. The other windows can be plastic.

I read somewhere that it's because perspex smears when wet, impeding vision, though aircraft have perspex 'screens, as far as I know......

It's a legal requirement now, but was it back then? It's also now a legal requirement for windscreens to be laminated, and a rear screen from another car would not have been. They may have been able to get away with it back then, but not now.

I think it was a legal requirement in the '60s and earlier, unless someone knows otherwise. There must be exceptions though, such as the Jaguar D-Type which were, and still are, perfectly road-legal with a perspex 'screen, albeit one that you can see over, rather than through.

Whether legal or not, it's probable that many MOT inspectors wouldn't have noticed. Checking for a plastic windscreen obviously wouldn't be a part of the test, and if it was noticed and the car failed, you could simply take it elsewhere back then, long before the current computerised system was introduced.

[CanAm]

borrani72 said:

I think it was a legal requirement in the '60s and earlier, unless someone knows otherwise. There must be exceptions though, such as the Jaguar D-Type which were, and still are, perfectly road-legal with a perspex 'screen, albeit one that you can see over, rather than through.

Whether legal or not, it's probable that many MOT inspectors wouldn't have noticed. Checking for a plastic windscreen obviously wouldn't be a part of the test, and if it was noticed and the car failed, you could simply take it elsewhere back then, long before the current computerised system was introduced.

If you can see over it, it doesn't even need to be transparent/. I have a carbon-fibre aeroscreen.

[uk66fastback]

borrani72 said:

Whether legal or not, it's probable that many MOT inspectors wouldn't have noticed. Checking for a plastic windscreen obviously wouldn't be a part of the test, and if it was noticed and the car failed ...

I don’t understand the above. If it can fail on it, it’d be checked, surely. But you say it wouldn’t be a part of the test, but if checked, would fail ... ?

[silverfoxcc]

IIRC laminated screens did not become legal until the mid-late 60's and before that were 'state of the art options,along with radios and heaters!!, certainly my two Ford Anglia had the safety glass crumble type

[borrani72]

uk66fastback said:

borrani72 said:

Whether legal or not, it's probable that many MOT inspectors wouldn't have noticed. Checking for a plastic windscreen obviously wouldn't be a part of the test, and if it was noticed and the car failed ...

I don’t understand the above. If it can fail on it, it’d be checked, surely. But you say it wouldn’t be a part of the test, but if checked, would fail ... ?

It wouldn't be on the standard MOT check list (they can't test everything), so they wouldn't normally be looking at the windscreen material, but if they did happen to notice a plastic 'screen, they should/would probably fail the car. Of course, I'm assuming a perspex windscreen wasn't legal at the time, which was my understanding but could be incorrect.


From what I read recently, the indicators should be visible from the side of the vehicle too (this was from some old magazine article, circa 1960, I think), which they aren't on the mystery car. I think a lot was left to the discretion of the individual tester back then.

[dandarez]

Loose_Cannon said:

No ideas for a name said:

Or this one

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Classic-Kit-Cars-Comprehe...

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.

Peter is still about (I think) - saw him a few yrs back at the Stoneleigh Kit Car Show (might be worth a wander round in case he's there this year). Used to live in Reigate, he prob still does. I don't look at the kit car mags anymore, wouldn't be surprised if he's still involved in some capacity. Memory is flagging these days but he was involved in a legal tussle at one point if I recall.
I suppose that's the odd thing, the mystery car, someone like Filby would bound to have known about it with his ear so close to the ground on this sort of subject matter. Makes me sometimes wonder if it's actually 'real'!

The other author/specialist car, microcar nut/author is Chris Rees. I was involved with one of his books back in the 90s. He used to work for Kit Car mag, joined Alternative Cars (Filby's baby) in 83, and freelanced to lots of other mags. He's very, very knowledgeable also. (I've have seen the odd feature on 'here - ie PHs' written by him - in the 'News' columns testing a car). Years ago he had an assortment of odd vehicles inc a Centaur - be funny if he owns the 'mystery' car!
Nah, not a chance.

Edited by dandarez on Friday 26th April 16:01

[dandarez]

Hello, just flicking through his (Chris Rees) old British Specialist Cars book of 1993 (prob already mentioned, nothing in it re the mystery car).

[dandarez]

Well, what a coincidence! Just found this looking through forthcoming car titles lists.

An updated (I assume) version of the same/similar book - 'definitive up to 1960', eh?
and to be published on 28 April.
Hang on, that's this Sunday. Who releases books on a Sunday?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/BRITISH-SPECIALIST-CARS-S...


To be published by Quiller Print. New name to me, I reckon (could be wrong) that might be Chris himself?

Sure he won't mind a plug! Quiller site says 'signed' and free p/p.

Edited by dandarez on Friday 26th April 18:21

[PH5121]

I may be going over old ground here, but I think it's based on a Sunbeam Alpine.

The rear wing fin, wheel trim and the profile of the rear wheel arch all look like an Alpine to me.

(Apologies if this has been ascertained already, but I must admit I didn't have time to re-read all of the previous posts)

[Yertis]

PH5121 said:

I may be going over old ground here, but I think it's based on a Sunbeam Alpine.

The rear wing fin, wheel trim and the profile of the rear wheel arch all look like an Alpine to me.

(Apologies if this has been ascertained already, but I must admit I didn't have time to re-read all of the previous posts)

Apologies accepted

Although it's been 'argued' rather than 'ascertained'.

[Yertis]

Oh brilliant - who built it then?

[SunbeamSteve]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I just wish I could afford a set of those wheels,ha

[Dr G]

Here is a car that is not this one but is somewhat interesting and quasi-relevant nonetheless.

https://jalopnik.com/at-6-500-could-this-1968-bill...

[threespires]

Dr G said:

Here is a car that is not this one but is somewhat interesting and quasi-relevant nonetheless.

https://jalopnik.com/at-6-500-could-this-1968-bill...

My goodness!