| Author | Post |
|---|
Glen Ponder
MCR Member
| Joined: | Sunday November 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 695 |
|
Posted: Tuesday April 15th, 2008 12:29 am |
|
Yes this one will run and run.
I think the sooner some folk stop looking down their noses at a reshelled car the better. Yes I love to see an original untouched car, don't we all, but if you look at what owners have done with their Minis over the last nye on fifty years it's understandable if not expected that many have had a 'base unit change'. It was nothing to stick on arches, paint the interior black, cut a hole in the roof to stick your head through, repaint the car metallic purple, deseam it, cut the front end off, rally it ( not in metallic purple hopefully  ) race it , roll it or let it rust to bits !! Most Coopers were "subjected" to this treatment and nobody batted an eyelid !
I think it's folly to become pre occupied with "originality" after all this time, re writing history to a degree cos nobody drove bog standard shiny Coopers in the 60's did they ? They were too busy having fun ! Which is what we should be pre occupied with doing not griping how "my car's more original than yours". Let's celebrate some of the rare original untouched cars that still crop up, but let's not forget these buzzboxes were built to drive !
As for 'works cars', don't get me on that one, I'm in a good mood
(Put it this way, at least when I've reshelled a car in the past I've actually had the original car to start with ! )
|
ka2s4
Member
|
Posted: Tuesday April 15th, 2008 09:32 am |
|
One word springs to mind 'INCLUSIVE'
The MCR is a public club, and as such, it needs to be inclusive.
Or more precisely, it's members and leadership need to be inclusive.
If you have a group of mates, then you can pick and choose who you associate with,you hang out with like minded people, this defines EXCLUSIVE.
In order to be inclusive, you just don't knock people for doing things their way.
I have a mate who is really into originality and concours, i am fascinated by his lust for perfection, and see the enjoyment he gets from doing things this way.
Who am i (or who is anyone else) to tell him not to get so caught up in the originality of stuff? and that He should drive his car in the rain?
I have another friend who drives his Cooper a lot, He loves to experience the thrill of giving it a damn good seeing to.Who am I to tel him that his car is too precious to treat like that?
I know another, who is going to chop His Cooper into a sprint,i think this is a great idea, but if i didn't, who am I to tell him not to modify his car so much?
I have still another friend who loves to modify his Cooper S, He has never had a standard one, the list of non original parts on his car is huge, the roof is the wrong colour, and one of his cars had porcelain green seats with silver brocade, as a special order from Newtons,
Who am i to tell him that it's wrong, and he shouldn't??
I think you all get the idea.
Anyone for a group hug?
J
|
mk1
Member
|
Posted: Tuesday April 15th, 2008 01:14 pm |
|
Well said J, I couldn't have put it better myself.
M.
|
ca2998
Member
| Joined: | Tuesday April 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
|
Posted: Wednesday April 16th, 2008 06:02 am |
|
| you shouldn't do that.
|
ka2s4
Member
|
Posted: Wednesday April 16th, 2008 06:13 am |
|
otherwise you will go blindLast edited on Wednesday April 16th, 2008 06:23 am by ka2s4 |
severnmini
Member
|
Posted: Wednesday April 16th, 2008 06:41 am |
|
| And whats wrong with being blind !!!!
|
1963S
Member
|
Posted: Thursday April 17th, 2008 11:53 am |
|
mk1 wrote:
"
Just as a matter of interest while you are so obviously taking the moral high ground, how do you reconcile having a 1071S logbook on a Traveller shell as far as I am aware there was never a 1071 Cooper S Traveller. This would cause far more problems regarding legality in the UK than reshelling your 1071 into a similar year & spec shell.
I suppose its a bit like wearing fake diamonds - perfectly acceptable as long as you have the originals ;-)
We don't have logbooks but my rego papers identify my car as a Traveller; calling it a Cooper would be patently ridiculous. However, using the logic presented her, I could suggest that my Traveller is as much a Cooper as any of the 850 bodied "reshells" people are defending (Obviously neither is - but only one's a fake) .
I don't think my 1071 ever had a logbook either as it was shipped to Oz within days of manufacture.
Years ago I could never get my head around the round nosed "1275GTs" that were advertised in various UK magazines. The concept is somewhat alien to us because of the way bodies are marked. While a UK swap means undoing a few screws, here you need to cut a chunk from both cars and then weld in the pieces containing the serial numbers - and then smooth over the surgery so the subterfuge is not obvious.
|
Graeme Allan
Member
| Joined: | Tuesday July 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
|
Posted: Thursday April 17th, 2008 02:42 pm |
|
Well folks I thought I would add my tuppence worth as well.
My car is a 1965 S which I found locally a number of years ago. The car having been laid up since 1973ish. The shell was in remarkable condition and only required minimal work to bring it back to life.
After the shell had been blasted in became apparent that in its early life it had been in an accident as the front panel had been replaced as well as the inner wings back as far as the bulkhead stiffener. I contacted the owner who I purchased the car from and he had no recollection of the car being damaged when he owned it so it must have been during the first owners time.
Anyway back to the restoration of the shell. The car had lost the body number and the FE number when repaired by the local bodyshop in the 60's. What was I to do? Well idecided that the car would do without these little bits and if any smart arse was to point them out then I would poke him in the eye. The car has its history and I want to keep it that way.
Honesty is the best policy. If it has been reshelled then so what!!!!!!
graeme
|
fyp741c
Member
| Joined: | Saturday March 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 141 |
|
Posted: Thursday April 17th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
its called
Theseus' paradox
and its heartening to think that it was exercising the minds of the ancients all those years ago
james
|
Mk 3 S Meister
MCR Member
|
Posted: Thursday April 17th, 2008 09:29 pm |
|
Theseus' paradox
It's all Greek to me 
|
Safety_Fast
Member
| Joined: | Friday October 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
|
Posted: Thursday April 17th, 2008 09:32 pm |
|
| Interesting reading if you stick it into wikipedia. Who would have thought the MCR forum would take such a philosophical turn! Last edited on Thursday April 17th, 2008 09:32 pm by Safety_Fast |
Mk 3 S Meister
MCR Member
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 07:37 am |
|
and not for the first time - I have a special one of these for Taffy
|
android
Member
| Joined: | Wednesday November 9th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 08:37 am |
|
| Seeing as tangential discussion is 'de rigeur' a similar analogy can be applied to the myth about Titanic and it's almost identical sister ship Olympic. Olympic was severely damaged by the infamous Capt Smith at Southampton when he collided with a naval vessel,which meant insurance costs couldn't be recovered. This,as you can imagine,put the White Star Line in a serious financial predicament. There are theories out there that the Titanic was not in fact the Titanic at all when it sank on it's maiden voyage.It was 'Olympic' with a id swap which was then sabotaged to recover the insurance money.
|
Gray
MCR Member
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 09:39 am |
|
android wrote: Seeing as tangential discussion is 'de rigeur' a similar analogy can be applied to the myth about Titanic and it's almost identical sister ship Olympic. Olympic was severely damaged by the infamous Capt Smith at Southampton when he collided with a naval vessel,which meant insurance costs couldn't be recovered. This,as you can imagine,put the White Star Line in a serious financial predicament. There are theories out there that the Titanic was not in fact the Titanic at all when it sank on it's maiden voyage.It was 'Olympic' with a id swap which was then sabotaged to recover the insurance money. I bet the chassis plate was a bugger to change.
|
android
Member
| Joined: | Wednesday November 9th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 10:17 am |
|
Gray wrote:
android wrote: Seeing as tangential discussion is 'de rigeur' a similar analogy can be applied to the myth about Titanic and it's almost identical sister ship Olympic. Olympic was severely damaged by the infamous Capt Smith at Southampton when he collided with a naval vessel,which meant insurance costs couldn't be recovered. This,as you can imagine,put the White Star Line in a serious financial predicament. There are theories out there that the Titanic was not in fact the Titanic at all when it sank on it's maiden voyage.It was 'Olympic' with a id swap which was then sabotaged to recover the insurance money. I bet the chassis plate was a bugger to change.
Nah,just two crosshead screws.
|
Andrew1967
MCR Member
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
android wrote: Gray wrote:
android wrote: Seeing as tangential discussion is 'de rigeur' a similar analogy can be applied to the myth about Titanic and it's almost identical sister ship Olympic. Olympic was severely damaged by the infamous Capt Smith at Southampton when he collided with a naval vessel,which meant insurance costs couldn't be recovered. This,as you can imagine,put the White Star Line in a serious financial predicament. There are theories out there that the Titanic was not in fact the Titanic at all when it sank on it's maiden voyage.It was 'Olympic' with a id swap which was then sabotaged to recover the insurance money. I bet the chassis plate was a bugger to change.
Nah,just two crosshead screws.
I saw the conspiracy theory documentary on the Titanic/Olympic (I like a good conspiracy theory.....what moon landing!!) and it looked to be quite compelling until they announced one big difference between the Titanic and Olympic.....Titanic had ashtrays with lids on .
Seriously, it was something to do with a different port hole arrangement on one part of the hull which proved that it was Titanic that sunk.
|
tim64
Member
| Joined: | Tuesday July 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 05:41 pm |
|
So in conclusion is it best to keep the original shell or re-sh......
|
Andrew1967
MCR Member
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 05:45 pm |
|
tim64 wrote: So in conclusion is it best to keep the original shell or re-sh......
I think the Titanic will need reshelling
|
Gray
MCR Member
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
| Possible donor shell http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/45-FT-NARROW-BOAT-CRUISER-STEEL-SHELL_W0QQitemZ380015770473QQihZ025QQcategoryZ121900QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
|
android
Member
| Joined: | Wednesday November 9th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
|
Posted: Friday April 18th, 2008 07:57 pm |
|
Andrew1967 wrote:
tim64 wrote: So in conclusion is it best to keep the original shell or re-sh......
I think the Titanic will need reshelling
I'm sure our Canadian friend will take it on,he's bolder than most apparently ....
|
Current time is 02:39 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
