The real italian job

[sminky]

dr_gn said:

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.

The rev gauge (jerky or not) didn't look like it was working as they left the start (30:39 )

[a boardman]

when he first started the car at 13.12 the rev counter did work.

[dr_gn]

sminky said:

dr_gn said:

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.

The rev gauge (jerky or not) didn't look like it was working as they left the start (30:39 )

I'd have been *way* more concerned about the apparently zero reading oil pressure gauge to the right of the tacho at that stage...

[Kinky]

dr_gn said:

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

No worries at all - honestly not aimed at you at all

[BlueCello]

Legion said:

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.

Sooooo...........because I don't have a car (due to being too young), I'm not a petrolhead?? What exactly does it take with your magical criteria?

[Legion]

I'm not inferring that at all. Read it again.

[DjSki]

Legion said:

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.

PH isn't what is was like in the good old days.......blah blah.....I remember when you could get a loaf of bread for 5p......blah blah.....don't you just love the mushroom risotto James cooked on Saturday kitchen.....

[Legion]

DjSki said:

Legion said:

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.

PH isn't what is was like in the good old days.......blah blah.....I remember when you could get a loaf of bread for 5p......blah blah.....don't you just love the mushroom risotto James cooked on Saturday kitchen.....

[Olf]

Legion said:

DjSki said:

Legion said:

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.

PH isn't what is was like in the good old days.......blah blah.....I remember when you could get a loaf of bread for 5p......blah blah.....don't you just love the mushroom risotto James cooked on Saturday kitchen.....

Come on then Legion, who were you? You're far to interesting to be a newbie and you write stories like a Clarkson sunday article. Lets have it.

[Legion]

Olf said:

Legion said:

DjSki said:

Legion said:

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.

PH isn't what is was like in the good old days.......blah blah.....I remember when you could get a loaf of bread for 5p......blah blah.....don't you just love the mushroom risotto James cooked on Saturday kitchen.....

Come on then Legion, who were you? You're far to interesting to be a newbie and you write stories like a Clarkson sunday article. Lets have it.

The Gospel According To Mark, 5:9.

[Ordinary Bloke]

Like anyone on here has a bible - couldn't you've quoted from a Haynes manual?

[Olf]

Legion said:

Olf said:

Legion said:

DjSki said:

Legion said:

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.

PH isn't what is was like in the good old days.......blah blah.....I remember when you could get a loaf of bread for 5p......blah blah.....don't you just love the mushroom risotto James cooked on Saturday kitchen.....

Come on then Legion, who were you? You're far to interesting to be a newbie and you write stories like a Clarkson sunday article. Lets have it.

The Gospel According To Mark, 5:9.

You've been watching to much Martin Shaw mate

Edited by Olf on Thursday 1st January 22:28

[Legion]

Ordinary Bloke said:

Like anyone on here has a bible - couldn't you've quoted from a Haynes manual?

That would be wayyyyyy to petrolheady!

[fastfreddy]

Surely you have figured out by now that Legion is a highly intelligent, sophisticated and cultured lifeform conceived out of an experiment by a group of famous scientists. He is composed from the minds of each member of PH, combined and magnified, and as such we are sustaining his very existence with our presence here.

Best we all logoff right now...

[Ordinary Bloke]

I have to admit I am 'post-Haymarket' and post a lot of rubbish, but I enjoy PH, and also had to wonder about:

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?

Well most of us learned to ignore the things which don't interest or amuse us, I think it's all part of human development. The same way I don't watch all the rubbish on the telly, really. Or ITV1...

The jealous thing is just wrong, IMO. We admire lots of very rich car enthiusiasts. The point was that James Chef didn't seem to be an enthiusiast.

As I said before, the vast majority of posts thought the editing didn't portray him in the best light. Whether some posters give a reasoned argument, whilst others use the word c0ck, the sentiment is much the same...

[anonymous-user]

dr_gn said:

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.

I use both styles of mechanical tachs's, the tach's made by Jones are far more like a conventional electronic in terms of display, but the smiths chronometric work OK as far as I'm concerned, certainly not so jerky that you cant use them to judge gearshift points properly.

[heebeegeetee]

johnfelstead said:

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

You've missed the point. It was one of those tales of derring-do. A rush job, and doing what they did was the best they could think of at the time and twas all that they had time for. It was that or nothing. Nobody was suggesting for one moment it was the best thing to do.

And the tale was probably conceived in a pub over a few pints anyway, like most tales of motorsport derring-do are.

[anonymous-user]

The point wasn't missed, they wouldn't bother doing that was the point, it's better to just run the engine straight from the build than do what the story suggested. I/E it was a made up pub story.

[dr_gn]

johnfelstead said:

dr_gn said:

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.

I use both styles of mechanical tachs's, the tach's made by Jones are far more like a conventional electronic in terms of display, but the smiths chronometric work OK as far as I'm concerned, certainly not so jerky that you cant use them to judge gearshift points properly.

Interested to see that Stack do an electronic version with a stepper motor to give the authentic 'time lapse' action :

http://www.stackltd.com/chronotronic.html

Still can't figure out why you'd choose that type over a normal 'sweeping' style mechanical tach though. There must be a specific reason why racing drivers like the chronometric action.

[guru_1071]

dr_gn said:

There must be a specific reason why racing drivers like the chronometric action.

its so that in the millisecond after the engine has grenaded its self, you can have a glance down at the delayed reaction revcounter and think 'oh $hit, i reved it to that!