RV Python - Vince replies!
Discussion
Rather than continue this on the Python Brochure thread I thought it merited a new one.
As the title implies, Vince has now replied to my e-mail, and Den isn't going to like the contents.
Yes Den, the Python exists! They're laying up body No3 at the moment and are working on chassis 6 to 12, so production has well and truly started. Vince even sent some jpegs showing work in progress. And I have to say that cassis doesn't look too flimsy to me Den.
As for the heritage and the name, Vince says he bought the (by that time long dormant) Python project from Unique Autocraft in January 2001. He even had a Python on display at the 2001 Stafford Show.
The reason the 'production' RV version is so different to Unique's is that Vince reckoned the chassis was too heavy so set about effectively re-engineering the whole car, changing to BMW mechanics while he was at it, which obviously takes time.
Right then Den, over to you...
As the title implies, Vince has now replied to my e-mail, and Den isn't going to like the contents.
Yes Den, the Python exists! They're laying up body No3 at the moment and are working on chassis 6 to 12, so production has well and truly started. Vince even sent some jpegs showing work in progress. And I have to say that cassis doesn't look too flimsy to me Den.
As for the heritage and the name, Vince says he bought the (by that time long dormant) Python project from Unique Autocraft in January 2001. He even had a Python on display at the 2001 Stafford Show.
The reason the 'production' RV version is so different to Unique's is that Vince reckoned the chassis was too heavy so set about effectively re-engineering the whole car, changing to BMW mechanics while he was at it, which obviously takes time.
Right then Den, over to you...
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
.
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
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.
You say it's a new design, but is it? Haven't checked this with Vince, but if it still uses the original Python body (and the extended wheelbase suggests it could) then is it really a 'new' design or in fact a development of the original as claimed? Open to interpretation methinks, though you've made your interpretation clear.
As for Vince not having answered any of the substansive issues, that's possibly because he's too busy building Pythons at the moment.
Don't know why you should raise doubts about the notion of a BMW based Cobra Den, as Gardner Douglas have used a BMW V8 in one of theirs.
However, you're quite right to advise people not to part with the readies until they've seen something tangible.
I've no doubt that a tangible Python will appear at certain kit car shows next year, at which time we'll all be able to generate better informed opinions as to its worth.
And let's not forget that Filby's involvement is only with the UK marketing, not the engineering. Thank goodness...
You say it's a new design, but is it? Haven't checked this with Vince, but if it still uses the original Python body (and the extended wheelbase suggests it could) then is it really a 'new' design or in fact a development of the original as claimed? Open to interpretation methinks, though you've made your interpretation clear.
As for Vince not having answered any of the substansive issues, that's possibly because he's too busy building Pythons at the moment.
Don't know why you should raise doubts about the notion of a BMW based Cobra Den, as Gardner Douglas have used a BMW V8 in one of theirs.
However, you're quite right to advise people not to part with the readies until they've seen something tangible.
I've no doubt that a tangible Python will appear at certain kit car shows next year, at which time we'll all be able to generate better informed opinions as to its worth.
And let's not forget that Filby's involvement is only with the UK marketing, not the engineering. Thank goodness...
grahambell said:
Hi Den.
You say it's a new design, but is it? Haven't checked this with Vince, but if it still uses the original Python body (and the extended wheelbase suggests it could) then is it really a 'new' design or in fact a development of the original as claimed? Open to interpretation methinks, though you've made your interpretation clear.
New mechanics, new chassis, new floor, new pedals, new steering column = new design.
The only original bit is the body (and even there it’s a new mould I think). All new Cobras started with someone else’s body. grahambell said:Well, given that his car was advertised as being ‘back with bite’ two years ago, I’d be tempted to be critical of his rate of work. He hasn’t built one yet. For your information it takes a day to make a ladder chassis (2 days at most) and 2 man-days to make a body (4 at most).
As for Vince not having answered any of the substansive issues, that's possibly because he's too busy building Pythons at the moment.
grahambell said:I didn’t. I’ve reproduced what I’ve said again below.
Don't know why you should raise doubts about the notion of a BMW based Cobra Den, as Gardner Douglas have used a BMW V8 in one of theirs.
KitCar said:As you can read
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.
, I’ve not said it can’t be done. grahambell said:
However, you're quite right to advise people not to part with the readies until they've seen something tangible.
grahambell said:
I've no doubt that a tangible Python will appear at certain kit car shows next year, at which time we'll all be able to generate better informed opinions as to its worth.
Agreed. grahambell said:You know that, do you?
And let's not forget that Filby's involvement is only with the UK marketing, not the engineering. Thank goodness...
My main problems with this venture are that Fib’s is incapable (by his own admission) of providing technical help combined with the fact that there shall certainly be a need for technical help given the prototype nature of what’s being sold and the non-existence of instructions, nor even a complete vehicle to look at.
Vince,
It occurs to me that if you have e-mail capability
, then you’ve almost certainly got the ability to post directly
, rather than through Graham. If you are considering posting directly
but are concerned about my ranting
, then please be assured that I’m not looking for an argument with you. Look at the situation with Dave Pepper
. He was taken in and taken for a ride
and I fully accept that the outlandishly optimistic advertising and promotion of the AF Sports
was out of Dave’s hands
. I’m now happy to advertise what Dave is doing
because he’s an honest guy. I’d have no hesitation in doing the same for you provided that I was convinced that your intentions were honourable
and your advertising claims honest
Hope to hear from you without the go-between.
If you wish to try the water first
, why not open private e-mail dialogue. I won’t abuse it. That’s a promise. Den
. kitcarman said:
New mechanics, new chassis, new floor, new pedals, new steering column = new design.
So by that reasoning Den, the current Pilgrim Sumo isn't really a Pilgrim Sumo because it has new mechanics, new chassis, new floor, new pedals and new steering column compared to the original.
kitcarman said:
given that his car was advertised as being ‘back with bite’ two years ago, I’d be tempted to be critical of his rate of work. He hasn’t built one yet. For your information it takes a day to make a ladder chassis (2 days at most) and 2 man-days to make a body (4 at most).
Things sometimes take a lot longer than you expect - especially if you want to do the job right. Are you equally critical of Chris Greville-Smith and Norman Morris for the length of time it took them to get the Phantom properly into production? Didn't think so.
grahambell said:
Don't know why you should raise doubts about the notion of a BMW based Cobra Den.
kitcarman said:
I didn’t. I’ve reproduced what I’ve said again below.
KitCar said:
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.
kitcarman said:
As you can read
Agreed Den, you've not said it CAN'T be done, but what you have said is clearly intented to raise doubts about whether it will be done or done properly. So that's still raising doubts about the notion of a BMW based Cobra
grahambell said:
And let's not forget that Filby's involvement is only with the UK marketing, not the engineering. Thank goodness...
[quote=kitcarman]You know that, do you?
Well I'm pretty sure he's not working in Vince's factory in Sri Lanka...
Tell you what Den, rather than you have to communicate with a 'go-between' I'll e-mail Vince the URL's of the relevant threads and if he's inclined (and can find the time) maybe he'll start posting here himself.
>> Edited by grahambell on Thursday 4th December 20:04
kitcarman said:
I’m now happy to advertise what Dave is doing
However in the meantime you will continue to publish EDITED copies of his firms adverts?
Does he really have to justify himself and his company to you?
I think the only thing I can do to save my own personnel sanity is to stop reading this site (like so many others).
Graham,
Firstly, my words to Vince at the end of my last post weren’t intended to be a snub against you. I was merely suggesting that if Vince were to post himself, I could deal with matters first-hand as opposed to second-hand.
The problem with dealing with a third party like yourself is that it’s difficult to be direct without it looking like my words are directed at you. It was indeed hard dealing with this first point for reasons you’ll see
. At least I hope you will.
I’ll deal with the points you raised in small chunks if it’s all the same to you. Rather than another bally long reply, I’ll deal with the issues one at a time.
. If you are seriously suggesting that new = unused in the above, then I can see that I’m going to have to expand every word that I use to avoid confusion.
My short answer is that I’m not referring to the age of any given component
but to the state of the design. New (as used above) = new design, or newly designed.
Please allow me to re-phrase the above sentence such that it conveys what was intended:-
I believe that because the new Python has or utilises:-
New mechanical components never before fitted to Python (or any other Cobra for that matter),
New chassis design (unlike anything else), as yet untried,
New floorpan design which is implicit in the advertisements, and which must be of different design (compared to the original Python) if only because the chassis design is different (compared to the original),
New pedals and Steering column (from BMW) are employed.
Whilst I didn’t say this first time around, the Python advertisements also proclaim:-
New body construction techniques utilising “polyurethane foam sandwich techniques”
My point is that the design and / or construction and / or source of every part, or at least a significant number of the constituent parts, of the new Python is different compared to the original Python.
Accordingly, I believe that the new Python is a new design.
Hope I got there this time!
It therefore cannot reasonably be described as carrying over the dynamic and quality credentials of a predecessor made twenty years ago. However, that’s exactly the impression given in the advertisements. I believe that’s misleading and I’m rebutting in these terms:-
What’s wrong with my warning?
I’ve not said repeat,NOT SAID anything bad about the Python. My point is to call into question the claims being made of it. Nobody knows one way or the other whether it will perform as well as its predecessor in name. Similarly, nobody knows if its quality will match that of its predecessor in name. I believe that such claims are premature at best and deceitful at worst.
Den
Firstly, my words to Vince at the end of my last post weren’t intended to be a snub against you
. I was merely suggesting that if Vince were to post himself, I could deal with matters first-hand as opposed to second-hand. The problem with dealing with a third party like yourself is that it’s difficult to be
direct without it looking like my words are directed at you. It was indeed hard dealing with this first point for reasons you’ll see. At least I hope you will. I’ll deal with the points you raised in small chunks
if it’s all the same to you. Rather than another bally long reply, I’ll deal with the issues one at a time. grahambell said:It’s difficult to know whether or not your comment is serious
New mechanics, new chassis, new floor, new pedals, new steering column = new design.
So by that reasoning Den, the current Pilgrim Sumo isn't really a Pilgrim Sumo because it has new mechanics, new chassis, new floor, new pedals and new steering column compared to the original.
. If you are seriously suggesting that new = unused in the above, then I can see that I’m going to have to expand every word that I use to avoid confusion. My short answer is that I’m not referring to the age of any given component
but to the state of the design. New (as used above) = new design, or newly designed. Please allow me to re-phrase the above sentence such that it conveys what was intended:-
I believe that because the new Python has or utilises:-
New mechanical components never before fitted to Python (or any other Cobra for that matter),
New chassis design (unlike anything else), as yet untried,
New floorpan design which is implicit in the advertisements, and which must be of different design (compared to the original Python) if only because the chassis design is different (compared to the original),
New pedals and Steering column (from BMW) are employed.
Whilst I didn’t say this first time around, the Python advertisements also proclaim:-
New body construction techniques utilising “polyurethane foam sandwich techniques”
My point is that the design and / or construction and / or source of every part, or at least a significant number of the constituent parts, of the new Python is different compared to the original Python.
Accordingly, I believe that the new Python is a new design. Hope I got there this time!
It therefore cannot reasonably be described as carrying over the dynamic and quality credentials of a predecessor made twenty years ago. However, that’s exactly the impression given in the advertisements. I believe that’s misleading and I’m rebutting in these terms:- 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.
What’s wrong with my warning? I’ve not said repeat,NOT SAID anything bad about the Python. My point is to call into question the claims being made of it. Nobody knows one way or the other whether it will perform as well as its predecessor in name. Similarly, nobody knows if its quality will match that of its predecessor in name. I believe that such claims are premature at best and deceitful at worst. Den
andycanam said:Andy,
I’m now happy to advertise what Dave is doing
Does he really have to justify himself and his company to you?
I think the only thing I can do to save my own personnel sanity is to stop reading this site (like so many others).
I don’t see the text I’ve written as an “EDITED” version of his. I’ve quoted
what he says on one side and what I say on the other. For my part, I’m asking the whole of this forum to tell me what, if anything, I’m saying wrong. No he doesn’t have to justify himself to anybody
. I simply made the point that as things stand, I believe the inferences in the ads are wide of the mark and that if they were not wide of the mark I’d have no problem with it. If the ad was headed “Coming Back”
instead of “Back with Real Bite” and the claims in the text started with “We hope….” or “Our aim is. . . .” or “Being developed is. . .” then the whole basis of my complaint would evaporate. My objection is with phrases like “The BMW V8 fits perfectly too.” We all know that it hasn’t been done yet
and that perfection is a tough standard. I personally doubt that it will fit ‘perfectly’. Furthermore, the inference is that the other BMW engines have also been fitted ‘perfectly’ when the truth is that no engine
has been fitted at all. A car has NEVER BEEN BUILT. The one in the photo is an original Jaguar based version. Sorry it’s affecting your sanity
, but read this:- Ex-Biker said:
My point was a very simple one . . .
If the car is good build one and prove it!
I’d say that if RV Dynamics had built the car first, then made their claims, there’d be no problem (assuming of course that the claims matched the findings). I fail to see why anybody has difficulty in getting their head around such a concept. In fact you said yourself:-
andycanam said:I’m just pointing out to my readers the significance of your observation.
I agree with they have blown their own trumpet too early. . .
What am I doing wrong? Den
grahambell said:I’ve no problems with people who painstakingly develop their product
given that his car was advertised as being ‘back with bite’ two years ago, I’d be tempted to be critical of his rate of work. He hasn’t built one yet. For your information it takes a day to make a ladder chassis (2 days at most) and 2 man-days to make a body (4 at most).
then sell it. I do have a very big problem with people who sell their ‘perfect’ product with misleading advertisements designed to lull the customer into a sense of false security, then attempt to develop the product to match the claims of perfection. Especially when the said manufacturer is working behind a shield of biased editorial written by an editor who just happens to have a financial interest in its success and a poor track record in similar projects which have resulted in bitter disappointment to customers. Then on top of this,
I can see very significant shortcomings in the design of that one (most fundamental) component that has made its belated debut. Such chassis are apparently being mass-produced for release onto unsuspecting customers. Those customers having been prepared as follows:- WhichKit said:As I said in the previous thread
It is a constant brainwashing misinformation process which unfortunately the gullible public will believe.
, Which Kit? are advising customers to wait for the Python, rather than buy a GD or Pilgrim or whatever now. That’s bad advice in any event and damaging
to established suppliers. I’m redressing the “brainwashing misinformation process”. Den
grahambell said:
Don't know why you should raise doubts about the notion of a BMW based Cobra Den. kitcarman said:
I didn’t. I’ve reproduced what I’ve said again below.
KitCar said:
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.kitcarman said:
As you can read
Agreed Den, you've not said it CAN'T be done, but what you have said is clearly intented to raise doubts about whether it will be done or done properly. So that's still raising doubts about the notion of a BMW based Cobra
Sorry Graham
, but I don’t agree that I’m casting aspersions on the notion of a BMW based Cobra. My point is that untested prototype kits are being delivered against promises that they fit ‘perfectly’. I’ve designed and built something like 30 new models of kit car
(If you count both doner variations and Mk numbers). On each occasion I hoped (and believed) that the transition from drawing board to driving vehicle would be easy. However, every model HAD TO HAVE significant alterations to one area of the chassis or another. By significant, I mean a welded alteration. The need for such alteration only became aparent upon
driving the vehicle in most cases. In the course of building it in others. In this case none have been built and certainly none have been driven. Mass producing before the designer has verified his design is a sign of financial desperation IMHO. Not only that, but with Vince in Sri Lanka and Fib’s in cloud cuckoo land (mechanically speaking),
I wonder how customers will have these ‘inevitable’ problems solved
. What’s more is that the problem I can foresee with the chassis
will be very difficult to rectify because it’s truly fundamental. Furthermore the first three delivered were galvanized and are therefore very difficult to weld. Den
>> Edited by kitcarman on Friday 5th December 01:52
Hi Den,
My comments regarding the current and original Sumo was rather tongue in cheek (hence the winking smiley) but does make a serious point. The later Sumo is completely different in all but looks to the original, yet bears the same name. So Den, would you descibe it as a different car or a development of the original?
You say you havn't been casting aspersions on the notion of a BMW based Cobra. Well sorry Den, but on this forum you've basically done nothing but cast aspersions on the whole Python project, continually referring to it as the Monty Python.
First, you deny any Python brochure exists and even arrange for PHers to send off for one. Then, when the requested information duly arrives you say it doesn't really constitute a brochure.
You also keep stating that the car is effectively a figment of someone's imagination, and then when you're told it is in production still keep implying that it's not going to be any good.
Or at least that's the way it comes across to me, and I think many others, which combined with the amount of space your magazine devoted to having a go at Filby isn't doing you any favours Den.
Regarding the chassis, this isn't something radically new and untried, it's basically a ladderframe with a small backbone centre section added.
Can't comment on whether or not a prototype has been built and driven because I don't know.
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, to the fact that the body couldn't be made to mount on the chassis without cutting and re-glassing the rear bulkhead.
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.
I've now e-mailed Vince the URLs of these forum pages and invited him to reply personally if he feels so inclined.
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?
My comments regarding the current and original Sumo was rather tongue in cheek (hence the winking smiley) but does make a serious point. The later Sumo is completely different in all but looks to the original, yet bears the same name. So Den, would you descibe it as a different car or a development of the original?
You say you havn't been casting aspersions on the notion of a BMW based Cobra. Well sorry Den, but on this forum you've basically done nothing but cast aspersions on the whole Python project, continually referring to it as the Monty Python.
First, you deny any Python brochure exists and even arrange for PHers to send off for one. Then, when the requested information duly arrives you say it doesn't really constitute a brochure.
You also keep stating that the car is effectively a figment of someone's imagination, and then when you're told it is in production still keep implying that it's not going to be any good.
Or at least that's the way it comes across to me, and I think many others, which combined with the amount of space your magazine devoted to having a go at Filby isn't doing you any favours Den.
Regarding the chassis, this isn't something radically new and untried, it's basically a ladderframe with a small backbone centre section added.
Can't comment on whether or not a prototype has been built and driven because I don't know.
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, to the fact that the body couldn't be made to mount on the chassis without cutting and re-glassing the rear bulkhead.
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.
I've now e-mailed Vince the URLs of these forum pages and invited him to reply personally if he feels so inclined.
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?
Whilst I certainly hope (and expect) that the Python will be as good a car as the adverts claim, I can appreciate Den's point of view. The adverts most certainly portray the impression that completed cars exist and have been thoroughly road tested. Bearing in mind this advert was first published a considerable time ago, I can fully see why Den feels this ad was misleading.
You also seem to have contradicted yourself Graham, first stating that "Vince reckoned the chassis was too heavy so set about effectively re-engineering the whole car" and then "You say it's a new design, but is it?". Re-engineering almost certainly involves changing the design on something.
Further, I don't see any attack on Vince or even the car itself from Den's, simply a suggestion that the marketing tactics were not appropriate.
You also seem to have contradicted yourself Graham, first stating that "Vince reckoned the chassis was too heavy so set about effectively re-engineering the whole car" and then "You say it's a new design, but is it?". Re-engineering almost certainly involves changing the design on something.
Further, I don't see any attack on Vince or even the car itself from Den's, simply a suggestion that the marketing tactics were not appropriate.
I'm probably going to get my head bitten off for this . . 
. . but this is just a few observations and opinions.
Graham
Regarding new models etc. It is my understanding that the Sumo is an ongoing developement (eg like a Mondeo, newer improved model each year or so), whereas the Python is not (eg. take a Cortina and turn it into a Mondeo). This IMO misses out vital steps in developement, making it a new model.
Den
Like most queries (technical or otherwise), most companies utilise email to answer questions, so it doesn't matter where they are in the world. Try calling an insurance helpline nowadays, just 'cause you ring 0870 ..... doesn't mean you are talking to someone in the UK!
Graham
I'll be ringing for another Python brochure today (if someone will forward the tel no (via email)) as I haven't recieved mine. My reasons for getting one are to gain a better understanding of the issues raised here.
Den
I know this is not full mechanicals (inc running gear etc) but:
Can you confirm this?
I do agree with most of what Den says about the Python advertising and also see much of your side Graham. The comments here probably add fuel to the fire rather than help to resolve it.
Den has referred to my comment:
I would like to see this car built.
We talked on another thread about test driving before buying and seemed to resolve it, in that if you can't get a test it's adviseable to at least get a passenger ride.
When I contacted (let's just say) the company dealing with Python, I was told that 3 chassis kits had already been sold. From this I assume no bodies have. If I were buying I would be very concerned on a number of points.
1. There is not a built car in the UK to see.
2. You cannot get a ride in the car.
3. They didn't mention when the body kit would be available.
4. I haven't received the brochure I asked for.
A serious buyer seeing these points couldn't help but to believe what Den is saying. But as I've already said. If we see one, get to drive one and find out that all that is printed (about the performance etc) in WK? is true, then Den will have to climb down. But until that time he is only writing about his and others observations.
If Vince does read these posts and does contact either of you, would he be so kind as to email some photo's of a completed car.
Dynamic Performance are bringing out a new car, the 'Attack'. They have not published anything about performance or anything else for that matter (other than it now being Mondeo based). Most of the kit car world wait with baited breath. Now that's how to launch a kit car!!!!
>> Edited by Ex-Biker on Friday 5th December 10:26
>> Edited by Ex-Biker on Friday 5th December 10:29
. . but this is just a few observations and opinions. Graham
Regarding new models etc. It is my understanding that the Sumo is an ongoing developement (eg like a Mondeo, newer improved model each year or so), whereas the Python is not (eg. take a Cortina and turn it into a Mondeo). This IMO misses out vital steps in developement, making it a new model.
Den
Like most queries (technical or otherwise), most companies utilise email to answer questions, so it doesn't matter where they are in the world. Try calling an insurance helpline nowadays, just 'cause you ring 0870 ..... doesn't mean you are talking to someone in the UK!
Graham
I'll be ringing for another Python brochure today (if someone will forward the tel no (via email)) as I haven't recieved mine. My reasons for getting one are to gain a better understanding of the issues raised here.
Den
I know this is not full mechanicals (inc running gear etc) but:
grahambell said:
Don't know why you should raise doubts about the notion of a BMW based Cobra Den, as Gardner Douglas have used a BMW V8 in one of theirs.
Can you confirm this?
I do agree with most of what Den says about the Python advertising and also see much of your side Graham. The comments here probably add fuel to the fire rather than help to resolve it.
Den has referred to my comment:
Ex-Biker said:
My point was a very simple one . . .
If the car is good build one and prove it!
I would like to see this car built.
We talked on another thread about test driving before buying and seemed to resolve it, in that if you can't get a test it's adviseable to at least get a passenger ride.
When I contacted (let's just say) the company dealing with Python, I was told that 3 chassis kits had already been sold. From this I assume no bodies have. If I were buying I would be very concerned on a number of points.
1. There is not a built car in the UK to see.
2. You cannot get a ride in the car.
3. They didn't mention when the body kit would be available.
4. I haven't received the brochure I asked for.
A serious buyer seeing these points couldn't help but to believe what Den is saying. But as I've already said. If we see one, get to drive one and find out that all that is printed (about the performance etc) in WK? is true, then Den will have to climb down. But until that time he is only writing about his and others observations.
If Vince does read these posts and does contact either of you, would he be so kind as to email some photo's of a completed car.
Dynamic Performance are bringing out a new car, the 'Attack'. They have not published anything about performance or anything else for that matter (other than it now being Mondeo based). Most of the kit car world wait with baited breath. Now that's how to launch a kit car!!!!
>> Edited by Ex-Biker on Friday 5th December 10:26
>> Edited by Ex-Biker on Friday 5th December 10:29
Looking at this from another point of view.
I am a punter. I Have always likd kit cars, since a friends' dad had a Dutton years ago. My interest was rekindle with "A Car is Born" [complete with Den's staring role]. It was about that time I started reading Which Kit and KCM. I originally thought about a Sumo but it was too expensive so looked at a Tiger Cat. Marriage and a child put the plan on hold for a while but I kept reading the magazines. I was still interested in the Sumo and when the Python came along, I thought that could be good too.
However, after attending shows I and my co builder decided to go for a V8 Seven style motor for more laughs. To arrive at this decision involved looking at lots of manufacturers and talking to owners and builders. This led us to chose a kit with a proven product and a compay with a reputation. I am going in to the project knowing that the factory support can be a bit hit and miss, but am bouyed by a developed kit in the Rush.
To buy a kit without researching the supplier and the kit is a brave step. If you a competent engineer, why not? It could be a challenge. But for a novice builder I am staying well away from the Python until it is a bit more established.
Take Tiger as an example. With Jim Dudley at the helm when a kit is announced it is in a near complete state. When they took on the Avon Srint, it wasn't sold until it was ready. I know they took a few orders which were delayed, but they were open and honest and made sure they had put out a demonstator before the customers built theirs.
This is the type of activity which builds trust in a supplier.
You have to walk into these purchases with your eyes open. I believe that if you are not going to do your research then you have to accept you are taking a gamble. If Den or Peter F start making implications about a supplier or a model then that should raise a warning flag but it should not make your decision for you.
I am a punter. I Have always likd kit cars, since a friends' dad had a Dutton years ago. My interest was rekindle with "A Car is Born" [complete with Den's staring role]. It was about that time I started reading Which Kit and KCM. I originally thought about a Sumo but it was too expensive so looked at a Tiger Cat. Marriage and a child put the plan on hold for a while but I kept reading the magazines. I was still interested in the Sumo and when the Python came along, I thought that could be good too.
However, after attending shows I and my co builder decided to go for a V8 Seven style motor for more laughs. To arrive at this decision involved looking at lots of manufacturers and talking to owners and builders. This led us to chose a kit with a proven product and a compay with a reputation. I am going in to the project knowing that the factory support can be a bit hit and miss, but am bouyed by a developed kit in the Rush.
To buy a kit without researching the supplier and the kit is a brave step. If you a competent engineer, why not? It could be a challenge. But for a novice builder I am staying well away from the Python until it is a bit more established.
Take Tiger as an example. With Jim Dudley at the helm when a kit is announced it is in a near complete state. When they took on the Avon Srint, it wasn't sold until it was ready. I know they took a few orders which were delayed, but they were open and honest and made sure they had put out a demonstator before the customers built theirs.
This is the type of activity which builds trust in a supplier.
You have to walk into these purchases with your eyes open. I believe that if you are not going to do your research then you have to accept you are taking a gamble. If Den or Peter F start making implications about a supplier or a model then that should raise a warning flag but it should not make your decision for you.
grahambell said:
Hi Den, 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, to the fact that the body couldn't be made to mount on the chassis without cutting and re-glassing the rear bulkhead.
I agree these kind of thing 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,
hence why when I bought my Tiger Supersix earlier this year, I took my time and sought out a low mileage (2000) mint ready built one, with a full photographic record of it's build. So far, I have been very happy with it, but of course you do not get the same satisfaction (or problems) that you get when you build a kit yourself.....
Mr2Mike said:
I don't see any attack on Vince or even the car itself from Den's, simply a suggestion that the marketing tactics were not appropriate.
I think that constantly referring to it as the Monty Python and stating that there will be inevitable problems rates as an attack, albeit a mild one.
As for the new car or not bit - Vince bought the original Python, decided there were aspects that could be improved or updated and set about doing so. Yes, that's involved redesigning large amounts of it, but to continue my analogy, almost all of the original Cortina based Sumo was changed in the process of creating the present Granada/Jag based Sumo.
So does that make it a new car or a development of the original model? Matter of opinion I guess, but Pilgrim's current advertising suggests they see it as development.
No argument from me about the misleading advertising and self-promotion, which as far as I'm aware is entirely down to Filby and which Den was quite right to complain and warn people about.
But that's the thing - the core of the problem isn't the Python - it's Filby.
We won't be able to decide for certain if the Python is any good or not until we get to see the finished article. I think we can already come to a decision regarding Filby.
Regarding Ex-biker's question re. the BMW engined Gardner Douglas, yes, I do know this for a fact because they were building it when I was there to test the GD T70. It wasn't a 'production fit' but a one-off for a customer who wanted one.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff