The real italian job

[dr_gn]

heebeegeetee said:

dr_gn said:

I'm assuming not many of you have ever been to a Vintage Sports Car Club meeting? There you can witness many, many examples of Mr. Martin clones : Way too much money and vanity but absolutely no mechanical sense.

That's not the VSCC I know and love. I would imagine the VSCC is the one single club that has a greater body of knowledge that any other, possibly. If Carlsberg made a car club, etc etc.

In fact if James Martin knew of the VSCC they would have put him straight on every count.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 31st December 00:20

I absolutely agree with you, and I'm not saying all members are like that by any means, but the truth is quite a few members seem to fit that description from my observations. A VSCC meeting is as good a place as any to observe both cars and people! I remember one of the newer race commentators (a Brummie as I recall) who, during one meeting was describing certain cars as 'ost-in sevens', and the next meeting he'd completely chanced his pronunciation to 'oar-stin sevens' in order to match the accents of his new friends. Fantastic stuff.

Edited by dr_gn on Wednesday 31st December 00:35

[carl_w]

Part of my disappointment was that I was expecting the car to be one of these:


Poor research on my part, though.

[nick francis]

It astonishes me that so many people are taken in by TV nowadays.

Pardon my shouting but "IT'S ALL FAKE!"

Dont even think about James' plight, the whole thing would have been set up. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of good TV. How much he "paid" for his Maserati was irrelevant, does anybody here actually beleive that he would be out of pocket.

Next year there'll probably be a phone in to decide which car he buys to do the mille miglia!

[thekirbyfake]

J111 said:

thekirbyfake said:

Is there any way I can put the majority of posters on this thread onto some kind of "ignore" function so that never again do I have to read their childish, jealous and uninformed bile?

IMHO, the sniping at other posters is far more deleterious to PH than the criticism of the subject of a television programme who is highly unlike to become personally involved in the discussion.

You may well be surprised... http://www.parcferme.com/content/view/4522/2/

There's every chance JM, a true car enthusiast, reads PH. Or should that be read?

And to Legion, thanks ever so for accusing me of being a troll.

Top job Haymarket

[blueyes]

Badboy930 said:

TimJMS said:

I do wonder how the little Maserati ever passed scrutineering without a functioning RPM counter, and how the chef could ever have known where his safe engine speed threshold of 4500rpm was as a result. I suspect his engine builder may well point this out to him if he seeks recompense.

that was the first thing i noticed to...ditto re your thoughts.

It wasn't non-functioning. It was a mechanical rev counter (as per formula ford) and there is a slight delay between the revs and it registering on the clock. You have to allow for this and use your ears and not your eyes.
As for scruntineering, I'm sure that "a functioning rev-counter" isn't a requirement.

[Legion]

thekirbyfake said:

J111 said:

thekirbyfake said:

Is there any way I can put the majority of posters on this thread onto some kind of "ignore" function so that never again do I have to read their childish, jealous and uninformed bile?

IMHO, the sniping at other posters is far more deleterious to PH than the criticism of the subject of a television programme who is highly unlike to become personally involved in the discussion.

You may well be surprised... http://www.parcferme.com/content/view/4522/2/

There's every chance JM, a true car enthusiast, reads PH. Or should that be read?

And to Legion, thanks ever so for accusing me of being a troll.

Top job Haymarket

No problem. If you don't want to be accused, then don't act in such a way.

Maybe you want to take another read of your original post and see how it comes across. Not Haymarket's fault.

Also (from the link you posted)
“When it comes to motoring, James’ knowledge is first rate....."

Hmmm. Fundamentally, he did this: he spent hundreds of thousands on a car he knew nothing about, over the 'net, hired a co-driver who'd never done co-driving before, ignored instructions on how to treat a newly-built engine, and folded, a stone's throw from the start line. No embellishing here, just being succint as to what happened.

Anyone can say they are a 'petrolhead'. There are PS3 kiddies on PH who don't even have a licence who say as much. If he, and anyone else for that matter, thinks that spending a small fortune in this way, makes you 'a true car enthusiast'.....wonderful. Good for him. He attempted something, that for sure many people who are true 'petrolheads' would like to do. Critiquing his methods, the editing of the show, and the way he purported to come across, however, is not jealousy. But if you think the sun shines out of Mr Martin's backside, maybe you disagree?

By the way, I know if you google '%his name% + cars', the Parc Ferme article shows up around 20-odd on the search list. But if you fancy looking at other sites with forums talking about this very topic - the show - the consensus of opinion there as well, makes this PH thread rather tame in comparison.

Do your MI.

[dr_gn]

blueyes said:

Badboy930 said:

TimJMS said:

I do wonder how the little Maserati ever passed scrutineering without a functioning RPM counter, and how the chef could ever have known where his safe engine speed threshold of 4500rpm was as a result. I suspect his engine builder may well point this out to him if he seeks recompense.

that was the first thing i noticed to...ditto re your thoughts.

It wasn't non-functioning. It was a mechanical rev counter (as per formula ford) and there is a slight delay between the revs and it registering on the clock. You have to allow for this and use your ears and not your eyes.
As for scruntineering, I'm sure that "a functioning rev-counter" isn't a requirement.

Actually, it's correct name is a 'Tachometric Rev Counter' (a mechanical rev counter can also 'sweep' rather than 'tick') and it was *definitley not* working on the rally. At the engine speeds he was using there would have been an indication - as seen at 13'14" on the BBC iplayer footage (when he's test driving it). A tachometric counter will always register idle revs as a minimum when the engines running, but on that car it was on its zero stop even when driving. On the rally the oil pressure gauge was barely registering also.

Cheers.

Edited by dr_gn on Wednesday 31st December 17:42

[blueyes]

dr_gn said:

blueyes said:

Badboy930 said:

TimJMS said:

I do wonder how the little Maserati ever passed scrutineering without a functioning RPM counter, and how the chef could ever have known where his safe engine speed threshold of 4500rpm was as a result. I suspect his engine builder may well point this out to him if he seeks recompense.

that was the first thing i noticed to...ditto re your thoughts.

It wasn't non-functioning. It was a mechanical rev counter (as per formula ford) and there is a slight delay between the revs and it registering on the clock. You have to allow for this and use your ears and not your eyes.
As for scruntineering, I'm sure that "a functioning rev-counter" isn't a requirement.

Actually, it's correct name is a 'Tachometric Rev Counter' (a mechanical rev counter can also 'sweep' rather than 'tick') and it was *definitley not* working on the rally. At the engine speeds he was using there would have been an indication - as seen at 13'14" on the BBC iplayer footage (when he's test driving it). A tachometric counter will always register idle revs as a minimum when the engines running, but on that car it was on its zero stop even when driving. On the rally the oil pressure gauge was barely registering also.

Cheers.

You're right... and you have too much free time.

[dr_gn]

blueyes said:

dr_gn said:

blueyes said:

Badboy930 said:

TimJMS said:

I do wonder how the little Maserati ever passed scrutineering without a functioning RPM counter, and how the chef could ever have known where his safe engine speed threshold of 4500rpm was as a result. I suspect his engine builder may well point this out to him if he seeks recompense.

that was the first thing i noticed to...ditto re your thoughts.

It wasn't non-functioning. It was a mechanical rev counter (as per formula ford) and there is a slight delay between the revs and it registering on the clock. You have to allow for this and use your ears and not your eyes.
As for scruntineering, I'm sure that "a functioning rev-counter" isn't a requirement.

Actually, it's correct name is a 'Tachometric Rev Counter' (a mechanical rev counter can also 'sweep' rather than 'tick') and it was *definitley not* working on the rally. At the engine speeds he was using there would have been an indication - as seen at 13'14" on the BBC iplayer footage (when he's test driving it). A tachometric counter will always register idle revs as a minimum when the engines running, but on that car it was on its zero stop even when driving. On the rally the oil pressure gauge was barely registering also.

Cheers.

You're right... and you have too much free time.

Yes I confess I'm a sad b*tard, but that programme was so bad I've watched bits of it over again. Suppose you could call it 'car crash telly'?? har har har.

BTW Do you know what the point of a tachometric counter is? I can't figure it out for the life of me. I remember in 'Le Mans' with Steve McQueen, the in-car shots show one in his 917 or Lola or whatever it was they cobbled together (from the late sixties/seventies), so it's not just an old version of a tacho, there must be a good reason? I've got one here in front of me from a vintage Riley I think, and it is extremely wierd to watch when its working. It never really tells you instantaneously what the revs are. I wonder if it was to prevent the needle wobbling in a hard sprung car with a lot of vibration?

Cheers.

[Irish]

Love the car. Love the man for pursuing his passion. Want to do that some day!

[anonymous-user]

dr_gn said:

blueyes said:

dr_gn said:

blueyes said:

Badboy930 said:

TimJMS said:

I do wonder how the little Maserati ever passed scrutineering without a functioning RPM counter, and how the chef could ever have known where his safe engine speed threshold of 4500rpm was as a result. I suspect his engine builder may well point this out to him if he seeks recompense.

that was the first thing i noticed to...ditto re your thoughts.

It wasn't non-functioning. It was a mechanical rev counter (as per formula ford) and there is a slight delay between the revs and it registering on the clock. You have to allow for this and use your ears and not your eyes.
As for scruntineering, I'm sure that "a functioning rev-counter" isn't a requirement.

Actually, it's correct name is a 'Tachometric Rev Counter' (a mechanical rev counter can also 'sweep' rather than 'tick') and it was *definitley not* working on the rally. At the engine speeds he was using there would have been an indication - as seen at 13'14" on the BBC iplayer footage (when he's test driving it). A tachometric counter will always register idle revs as a minimum when the engines running, but on that car it was on its zero stop even when driving. On the rally the oil pressure gauge was barely registering also.

Cheers.

You're right... and you have too much free time.

Yes I confess I'm a sad b*tard, but that programme was so bad I've watched bits of it over again. Suppose you could call it 'car crash telly'?? har har har.

BTW Do you know what the point of a tachometric counter is? I can't figure it out for the life of me. I remember in 'Le Mans' with Steve McQueen, the in-car shots show one in his 917 or Lola or whatever it was they cobbled together (from the late sixties/seventies), so it's not just an old version of a tacho, there must be a good reason? I've got one here in front of me from a vintage Riley I think, and it is extremely wierd to watch when its working. It never really tells you instantaneously what the revs are. I wonder if it was to prevent the needle wobbling in a hard sprung car with a lot of vibration?

Cheers.

If they are in good condition they work almost as well as a modern electronic tacho and much better than the old electric tacho's that were available in period. They also have the benefit of giving you a true max rpm reading, a modern tacho can give a false max reading if you are using it with a rev limiter as all you see is the max rpm of the limiter, not how many revs was pulled on the downshift. They are a very simple device that use a driven cable usually taken from a distributor drive, you tend to get jerky displays if the drive cable is tired or the angle you run it through is too tight causing the cable to bind up and release.

The tacho on the TV program wasn't working in the part i saw of it, i also remember a conversation where the driver and co-driver said the max rpm limit and one said it was 1000rpm higher than the other. These two issues doesn't instill confidence in them keeping to what the engine builder had told them to use.

I wouldn't have any issues with running a fresh engine in that kind of event, even on full out races it's normal to just run the engine up for 30 minutes on a dyno then put it in for the race, it doesn't take any more than that to bed it in if it's built properly.

[heebeegeetee]

I've just been reading a bit of tales of derring-do in motorsport in bygone days, whereupon the engine of a competition car was run in by leaving it running whilst it was on the back of the truck en-route to the event.

[anonymous-user]

Plenty of bull in that one, it would glaze the bores over and not bed the rings in doing that.

[Gaspode]

dr_gn said:

Actually, it's correct name is a 'Tachometric Rev Counter'

[pedantry]
I think you may have meant to say the correct name is a "Chronometric Tachometer"
[/pedantry]

[dr_gn]

Gaspode said:

dr_gn said:

Actually, it's correct name is a 'Tachometric Rev Counter'

[pedantry]
I think you may have meant to say the correct name is a "Chronometric Tachometer"
[/pedantry]

Gaspode,

Spot on.

No, i didn't mean to say "Chronometric" because I was convinced it was "Tachometric", but I was wrong! Explains why I couldn't find one on Google. I wonder if I'd have described the one I sold on EBay a few months ago as "Chronometric" I'd have got more for it? Dammit!

Cheers.

[thekirbyfake]

Legion said:

Maybe you want to take another read of your original post and see how it comes across. Not Haymarket's fault

It came across exactly as it was intended.

Maybe you want to take another read of the thread and see how many of the "what a complete tit" posters have joined since Haymarket took the reins.

[dr_gn]

johnfelstead said:

dr_gn said:

blueyes said:

dr_gn said:

blueyes said:

Badboy930 said:

TimJMS said:

I do wonder how the little Maserati ever passed scrutineering without a functioning RPM counter, and how the chef could ever have known where his safe engine speed threshold of 4500rpm was as a result. I suspect his engine builder may well point this out to him if he seeks recompense.

that was the first thing i noticed to...ditto re your thoughts.

It wasn't non-functioning. It was a mechanical rev counter (as per formula ford) and there is a slight delay between the revs and it registering on the clock. You have to allow for this and use your ears and not your eyes.
As for scruntineering, I'm sure that "a functioning rev-counter" isn't a requirement.

Actually, it's correct name is a 'Tachometric Rev Counter' (a mechanical rev counter can also 'sweep' rather than 'tick') and it was *definitley not* working on the rally. At the engine speeds he was using there would have been an indication - as seen at 13'14" on the BBC iplayer footage (when he's test driving it). A tachometric counter will always register idle revs as a minimum when the engines running, but on that car it was on its zero stop even when driving. On the rally the oil pressure gauge was barely registering also.

Cheers.

You're right... and you have too much free time.

Yes I confess I'm a sad b*tard, but that programme was so bad I've watched bits of it over again. Suppose you could call it 'car crash telly'?? har har har.

BTW Do you know what the point of a tachometric counter is? I can't figure it out for the life of me. I remember in 'Le Mans' with Steve McQueen, the in-car shots show one in his 917 or Lola or whatever it was they cobbled together (from the late sixties/seventies), so it's not just an old version of a tacho, there must be a good reason? I've got one here in front of me from a vintage Riley I think, and it is extremely wierd to watch when its working. It never really tells you instantaneously what the revs are. I wonder if it was to prevent the needle wobbling in a hard sprung car with a lot of vibration?

Cheers.

If they are in good condition they work almost as well as a modern electronic tacho and much better than the old electric tacho's that were available in period. They also have the benefit of giving you a true max rpm reading, a modern tacho can give a false max reading if you are using it with a rev limiter as all you see is the max rpm of the limiter, not how many revs was pulled on the downshift. They are a very simple device that use a driven cable usually taken from a distributor drive, you tend to get jerky displays if the drive cable is tired or the angle you run it through is too tight causing the cable to bind up and release.

.

Are we talking about the same thing here I wonder? "Chronometric" tachometers (thanks Gaspode) have a jerky action by design - nothing to do with cable problems. I understand your point about max. rpm with a limiter and early electric tachos not being so good, but it doesn't explain why you'd want a 'sticky' or 'jerky' action. See BBCiPlayer of The Real Italian Job 13minutes 14seconds in (or just about any in-car scene from Steve McQueen's 'LeMans' to see what I'm trying to describe.

Cheers.

[Kinky]

Folks,

Just a polite reminder of a post I made way back on page 10 ......

Kinky said:

Right folks - I'll make this VERY clear and VERY simple.

Any more abuse to ANYONE will warrant an immediate and permanent ban - effective IMMEDIATELY.

We have a really good thread unnecessarily ruined by complete and utter morons.

I could delete or lock the thread - but I don't see the point - and I don't have half an hour to tidy up all the crap and drivel posted. So one and only warning.

K.

[dr_gn]

Kinky said:

Folks,

Just a polite reminder of a post I made way back on page 10 ......

Kinky said:

Right folks - I'll make this VERY clear and VERY simple.

Any more abuse to ANYONE will warrant an immediate and permanent ban - effective IMMEDIATELY.

We have a really good thread unnecessarily ruined by complete and utter morons.

I could delete or lock the thread - but I don't see the point - and I don't have half an hour to tidy up all the crap and drivel posted. So one and only warning.

K.

Sorry, didnt mean any offence, just asking a genuine question about tachometers...?

Cheers.

[Legion]

thekirbyfake said:

Legion said:

Maybe you want to take another read of your original post and see how it comes across. Not Haymarket's fault

It came across exactly as it was intended.

Maybe you want to take another read of the thread and see how many of the "what a complete tit" posters have joined since Haymarket took the reins.

Mate....behave.