|
|
|
|
|
The funniest thing about this is that even if you could 100% guarantee what the car is based on you'd still be absolutely non the wiser of what the car actually is, and therefore your extraordinary efforts are pretty much futile as they still don't answer the question asked originally Completely agree. And that is your and the blue forums assumptions up in smoke. My efforts have been aimed at proving what a total load of horse curse word re-creating cars exactly is. Name the marque. Completely full of people claiming tool room copies etc. My conclusions on the mystery car are aimed at showing how forums are totally full of rubbish and incorrect opinion. My conclusions are no way near conclusive. However they will show what a futile exercise it is posting on forums. "My efforts have been aimed at proving what a total load of horse curse word re-creating cars exactly is".
But isn't that exactly what you do for a living?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
strongcomputer
Part of things
curse word off keyboard warriors. Whole forum I guess. Awaiting ban. Please. Do it. All forums are wibblepoo.
Posts: 52
|
|
|
|
Am not going to waste a second of my time on Google or Bing etc. Just fezz up and stop being a whatever. Post your designs. We all might be impressed? Still does not stop you being 100% wrong re the mystery car. As a clue, how are you going to explain a windscreen 90% the size of the windscreens put forward as possibilities? You really are foolish. The worst kind of forum person. [This has all got rather rediculous, so apologies to everyone for this, but I'm afraid I do feel the need for this to be said. Then maybe we can get back to sensible, courteous discussions].
As you have challenged me to back-up my claim about the size of the car, and given the specific circumstances you have created, I fear I MUST take that as permission to 'bastardise' (as you put it)/re-post some of your images, in order to provide some clarity in-regard to some of your claims against me.
I feel this entirely justified and indeed NECCESSARY as you have made some serious accusations against me today, and this is the only way to establish the truth of the matter. You may not know who I am, but others do, and you have now maligned my professional standing on a public forum. Even should your posts be deleted, I fear the reputational risk remains (they have already been read by some) unless interested parties are at least able to see my reply here.
[Should 3Dengineers choose to complain about copyright infringement, I can only apologise to the moderators in advance should this put them in a difficult position. I would ask them however to consider, having been publicly maligned in this way, that my right to defend my reputation outweighs any potential copyright infringement claim. I would also respectfully suggest that any supposed infringement may very well already be considered fair dealing for a variety of reasons].
As many readers will know, you have purchased and 3D scanned the rear screen from a Minx/Rapier. Therefore, this will be the most accurate part of any CAD model featuring the scan.
That being so, can you explain why, when I match the size of the original image to you CAD model, the windscreen of your model is about 10% smaller? Please measure the wheelbase of the images. They are the same. Then measure the height of the windscreen. They do not match. The 'screen on your model is too small. This I suggest can mean only one thing. The CAD model based on the Alpine is too big.
The green lines in both images are exactly the same size. Note the outer edges of the window rubbers.
I have covered-up as much of your image as possible so as to minimise any potential copyright infringement. The rearmost image is by Stuart Brown of 3Dengineers - most definitely NOT by me.
This image, again by Stuart Brown of 3Dengineers - most definitely NOT by me, shows his PROOF of the Alpine underpinnings of the mystery car.
Here, for clarity, I have outlined some key features, overlaying the 3Dengineers image. Perhaps Mr Brown, you can explain the curious alignment of the inner -wheelarches. The alignment you claim as PROOF, appears to depend upon their being moved forward/inward?? Please explain?
This is an image from 3Dengineers, about 2-years old, showing an earlier iteration of their CAD model of the mystery car.
This is an image, created by me without the benefit of a CAD package, at about the same time.
This is an image, again by 3Dengineers, posted a few weeks ago. 
Note the similarities between my image, above, and the features of this latest 3Dengineers model, especially around the tail of the car. Who has copied who?
The windscreen is unaltered. The scan is as per the scan. The boot is changed (lengthened). If people know who you are, go full on publicity. Don't be shy. |
| |
|
|
strongcomputer
Part of things
curse word off keyboard warriors. Whole forum I guess. Awaiting ban. Please. Do it. All forums are wibblepoo.
Posts: 52
|
|
|
|
Completely agree. And that is your and the blue forums assumptions up in smoke. My efforts have been aimed at proving what a total load of horse curse word re-creating cars exactly is. Name the marque. Completely full of people claiming tool room copies etc. My conclusions on the mystery car are aimed at showing how forums are totally full of rubbish and incorrect opinion. My conclusions are no way near conclusive. However they will show what a futile exercise it is posting on forums. "My efforts have been aimed at proving what a total load of horse curse word re-creating cars exactly is".
But isn't that exactly what you do for a living?
No. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"My efforts have been aimed at proving what a total load of horse curse word re-creating cars exactly is".
But isn't that exactly what you do for a living?
No. Good. |
| |
|
|
strongcomputer
Part of things
curse word off keyboard warriors. Whole forum I guess. Awaiting ban. Please. Do it. All forums are wibblepoo.
Posts: 52
|
|
|
|
[This has all got rather rediculous, so apologies to everyone for this, but I'm afraid I do feel the need for this to be said. Then maybe we can get back to sensible, courteous discussions].
As you have challenged me to back-up my claim about the size of the car, and given the specific circumstances you have created, I fear I MUST take that as permission to 'bastardise' (as you put it)/re-post some of your images, in order to provide some clarity in-regard to some of your claims against me.
I feel this entirely justified and indeed NECCESSARY as you have made some serious accusations against me today, and this is the only way to establish the truth of the matter. You may not know who I am, but others do, and you have now maligned my professional standing on a public forum. Even should your posts be deleted, I fear the reputational risk remains (they have already been read by some) unless interested parties are at least able to see my reply here.
[Should 3Dengineers choose to complain about copyright infringement, I can only apologise to the moderators in advance should this put them in a difficult position. I would ask them however to consider, having been publicly maligned in this way, that my right to defend my reputation outweighs any potential copyright infringement claim. I would also respectfully suggest that any supposed infringement may very well already be considered fair dealing for a variety of reasons].
As many readers will know, you have purchased and 3D scanned the rear screen from a Minx/Rapier. Therefore, this will be the most accurate part of any CAD model featuring the scan.
That being so, can you explain why, when I match the size of the original image to you CAD model, the windscreen of your model is about 10% smaller? Please measure the wheelbase of the images. They are the same. Then measure the height of the windscreen. They do not match. The 'screen on your model is too small. This I suggest can mean only one thing. The CAD model based on the Alpine is too big.
The green lines in both images are exactly the same size. Note the outer edges of the window rubbers.
I have covered-up as much of your image as possible so as to minimise any potential copyright infringement. The rearmost image is by Stuart Brown of 3Dengineers - most definitely NOT by me.
This image, again by Stuart Brown of 3Dengineers - most definitely NOT by me, shows his PROOF of the Alpine underpinnings of the mystery car.
Here, for clarity, I have outlined some key features, overlaying the 3Dengineers image. Perhaps Mr Brown, you can explain the curious alignment of the inner -wheelarches. The alignment you claim as PROOF, appears to depend upon their being moved forward/inward?? Please explain?
This is an image from 3Dengineers, about 2-years old, showing an earlier iteration of their CAD model of the mystery car.
This is an image, created by me without the benefit of a CAD package, at about the same time.
This is an image, again by 3Dengineers, posted a few weeks ago.
Note the similarities between my image, above, and the features of this latest 3Dengineers model, especially around the tail of the car. Who has copied who?
The windscreen is unaltered. The scan is as per the scan. The boot is changed (lengthened). If people know who you are, go full on publicity. Don't be shy. "Without the benefit of a CAD package, at about the same time" You are a bullshitting, copyright, plagiarist t**ser. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The windscreen is unaltered. The scan is as per the scan. The boot is changed (lengthened). If people know who you are, go full on publicity. Don't be shy. "Without the benefit if a CAD package, at about the same time" You are a bullshitting, copyright, plagiarist t**ser. At this rate, I'm afraid we'll soon have more pages than Pistonheads............
"Without the benefit if a CAD package, at about the same time" You are a bullshitting, copyright, plagiarist t**ser.
Please see Pistonheads, Sunday 10th Feb 2019, page63
If you're in a hole, stop digging.
At least sleep on it before for say anything else, please.
|
| |
|
|
strongcomputer
Part of things
curse word off keyboard warriors. Whole forum I guess. Awaiting ban. Please. Do it. All forums are wibblepoo.
Posts: 52
|
|
|
|
|
Right. Last word. Will leave you and all forums to your serial Bullplop. 102 pages on PH. Quite a few here. Many elsewhere. To what end? Virtually nothing constructive. Am off to create cars. Good luck with your pants and keyboard.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the two of you have got the wrong form. This is Retro Rides, we use Cardboard Aided Design. Not computers.
|
| |
1955 Austin A30
1981 Jawa Mustang
1990 Trabant 601 (Tommy)
1989 Trabant 601
2009 Jaguar XF
2012 Toyota AYGO
2018 Scomadi TL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the two of you have got the wrong form. This is Retro Rides, we use Cardboard Aided Design. Not computers. Hmmmm - sounds suspiciously like you might be........the actual BUILDER OF THIS CAR! |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the two of you have got the wrong form. This is Retro Rides, we use Cardboard Aided Design. Not computers. I'll let you all into a little secret.
One of those old school projects I mentioned earlier (Shell Mileage Marathon) did have a cardboard body............
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Porsche
West Midlands
Kev from B'ham.
Posts: 4,725 
|
|
|
|
The funniest thing about this is that even if you could 100% guarantee what the car is based on you'd still be absolutely non the wiser of what the car actually is, and therefore your extraordinary efforts are pretty much futile as they still don't answer the question asked originally Thank goodness I'm not the only person who is thinking this as I read all these posts. I really don't care what it's based on, all I wanna know is what make/model this car is and if it still exists. |
| |
|
|
jimi
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,254
|
|
|
|
Cog > Report Post > Enter reason and submit.  Do it. Don't give a whatever. Forums like this are talking shops for nothing people. If that's how you feel about forums and the people who use them why are you here ? Just because not everyone agrees with / believes in your theories as to the cars origin, that's no reason to  |
| |
Black is not a colour ! .... Its the absence of colour
|
|
Rob M
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,915
Club RR Member Number: 41
|
Mystery Car - PistonheadsRob M
@zeb
Club Retro Rides Member 41
|
|
|
|
Why do people have to destroy the fun element!
I was enjoying the mystery, the intrigue and the idea that it is possible to narrow things down to a point where it was likely that we could say, with some confidence, what the car was based on, at the very least.
Now I will have to wait until another thread is created on another forum....
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's based on a Z3.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come on guys. This isn't what this forum is about.
None of this actually matters. So what if it is an alpine, what do you win? Who genuinely actually cares? It's supposed to be a bit of fun.
Wierd Hill to die on, all of you.
|
| |
|
|
Rich
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 6,343
Club RR Member Number: 160
|
Mystery Car - PistonheadsRich
@foxmcintyre
Club Retro Rides Member 160
|
|
|
I didn't want to have to do this, but this is getting a temporary lock until y'all can be civil to each other. You've kinda forced my hand here by going WAY outside of the RR-MO.  |
| |
Last Edit: May 6, 2021 23:27:26 GMT by Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And here's me thinking the most controversial thing this week would be when I called the Black album metal.
Please, please, keep thing civil. No one should care this much about a picture of an old car. It matters not materially if it is based on an Alpine, a Ford pop or a time travelling BMW Z3. Ultimately the original ask of "what is this?" has not been answered, no advert, no other pictures, no details. Everything is conjecture, some informed researched conjecture, conjecture none the less, please treat each others conjecture with respect. Only sith deal in absolutes*
When we reopen this thread I'd like a bit better behaviour please.
Ironically an absolute statement
|
| |
|
|
