[Blenheim Boy]

I would like to introduce myself as a new member of the forum. I would like to extend my thanks to member 'geo' for sharing the FT article.

Personally speaking, I cannot help but huff and puff at John Griffiths comments on the Fighter feeling 'unfinished'. His review reminded me of Evo Magazine's lukewarm reception of the Fighter a few years ago.

Why does the correspondent feel compelled to comment negatively on Allen screws and aluminium knobs? The potential buyer can decide whether these are a pleasing sight or not. With regard to ride and handling; this is dictated by the owner's preference, is it not? That is one of the USPs of a Bristol, that is does not feel generic and can be tailored like no other car. I cannot understand why that was not made the focus of the review; surely if those who read the FT can afford a Fighter and many other of the finest things in life, they would relish ownership of such a personalised car?

And what purpose is there in comparing the Fighter to the Rolls-Royce Phantom and Bentley Continental GT, whether either be a saloon or coupe? The character of those machines is a complete contrast to that of the Bristol. The German cars are of a more generic nature; the Bentley was developed from a Volkswagen limousine for instance (hence the pricetag, about which the motoring journalists made great, positive fuss). If one does not like the ride quality of their Continental, I ask; what can the owner actually do about it? The Fighter owner only needs to make a phone call to the workshops with a request to retune the suspension.

I am a young man and I spent too many years absorbing the opinions of motoring journalists of the glossy car magazines, whose credentials were, I now retrospectively suspect, rather suspect!