|
|
|
|||||||
| Other topics of interest Discussions about anything else, i.e motoring, trends, politics, even the EU! |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
12-10-09, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
LJK Setright
Dorien
Thank you very much indeed for those kind words. Ash 
|
|
12-10-09, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashley,
I admit that I’m quite new to Setright’s writing. I do not question your integrity and I respect your experience with cars. But you do seem to expect others to fall into line with your opinion on LJKS, without really providing solid proof as to why. I feel that I have read nothing but slander so far. Quote: I think he describes one race in a Bristol that was finished either with a hole in the sump or a rod through a block. Very unlikely I'd have thought. Very unlikely I’d have thought is not proof, that is opinion. Come on now! I consider a man walking on the Moon very unlikely but I could not hope to disprove the Moon landings with nothing but vague cynicism! Jonathan Wood has unearthed ‘new’ information on the 400. This is wonderful news, but if it really is new information, then how could Setright know of it? He’s been gone since 2005. From what I have learned of Setright so far, yes, he held strong opinions, or ‘prejudices’ as you referred to them. Who doesn’t?! Strong opinions will always meet resistance. Because you and your colleague Dr Kimberley did not agree with those opinions does not make Setright wrong. I fully acknowledge the errors Setright made in Bristol Cars and Engines, which he was brave enough to address in print in a later book. Out of interest, would this issue have anything to do with the allegations of the Chrysler V8 engines not being as ‘Bristolised’ as previously thought? I would recommend Setright’s Drive On! and Long Lane With Turnings to revaluate your thinking. Footnote: You mentioned Steve Cropley, the editor of Autocar. Despite its heritage, this is a magazine that supposedly had an ‘exclusive’ test drive of some stylists wet-dream concept car that did the rounds a few years ago. The vehicle in question had no engine, and Autocar were caught pushing the car down a hill for photography purposes. I hope that for the sake of the integrity of the magazine and its editor, that the 'road test' was not published... BB Last edited by Blenheim Boy; 12-10-09 at 09:09 PM.
|
|
12-10-09, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LJK Setright
I knew Steve Cropley as Editor of Car magazine not Autocar. Setright
probably made his name for his contribution to this very outspoken magazine. It was subsequently purchased and decaffeinated by Haymarket who own Autocar. The views I've expressed regarding Setright are not mine alone but you may make of them what you wish. Most people are a mixture of strengths and weaknesses and I felt you were falling into the trap of seeing all strength. Far better to enjoy his work and plenty others' until eventually you see how he compares. Ashley
|
|
13-10-09, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashley,
I am not claiming that Setright’s every word was/is to be taken as unquestionable gospel. But you still refuse to provide any great evidence of the man’s mistakes. You just keep repeating yourself about how it is not only your opinion that you are stating, but that of many others. Who are these people, and how are their opinions/resources any more reliable than Setright’s? Believe me, I have spent far too much time reading far too many car magazines and I have become a little cynical of the opinions of motoring journalists. I do not take any opinion, including Setright’s, as gospel. My enthusiasm for active four wheel steering for instance, is fuelled by personal experience, not just Setright's preference of it. BB
|
|
13-10-09, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LJK Setright
Blenheim Boy
I think reading too many car magazines may be your problem. They are more advertorial and subjective opinion than useful. Depending on your interests may I suggest that you turn your attentions to material written by Michael Worthington-Williams, Jonathan Wood, David Burgess-Wise, Michael Ware, Tom Clarke, Denis Jenkinson and many more and then you will begin to understand the points I've made. The Automobile is a magazine that is excellent for historical information too. Setright's writings are well constructed, sometimes amusing, sometimes technically incorrect, often anecdotal, often not focussed and sometimes just embellishments of "received wisdom". Nothing wrong with that, it's a good read, though you shouldn't need my help to see it. The various technical descriptions of his that you allude to will be regurgitations of Press handouts from manaufacturers that a lawyer may not be able to appraise adequately. I must say that the zeal with which you have pursued me with on this one does rather place you in Fanboy territority. It's not life or death matter, I've just expressed an opinion that is fairly widespread, but at odds with you and Kevin. As I said before you can take it on board or ignore it, but don't expect me waste time trawling through the two Setright books I have to provide support what I've said. I suppose there's little point in suggesting you move the discussion on. I've run my race. Ashley
|
|
13-10-09, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I have never read the much lauded Setright so I have no axe to grind here. You can convert me to either viewpoint! Although I did see a picture once of his rather fine leather dashboard... so he appears to have had good taste. What I find very disturbing is that I am put in the unheard of position of agreeing with Kevin. I am worried by your "everyone agrees that he got lots wrong" kind of comments. They smack of the sort of unsubstantiated urban myth that Clarkson spouts while pocketing huge amounts of the licence fee payers' cash. Come on Ashley - convince me! Philippa
|
|
13-10-09, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashley,
I had to laugh at the Setright 'Fanboy' comment. Does this make you the LJKS 'Anti-Fanboy'? Do you often revert to mild insult when anyone disagrees with you? It was you who started the LJKS criticism, yet you seem surprised at the resistance this has met, largely because you refuse to bother providing evidence. We must roll over and accept your wonky opinion. Yes, this has become a pointless discussion because you just keep repeating yourself. You refuse to back-up your opinion, merely revert to hearsay/old wives tales like 'an opinion that is fairly widespread'. Yet hearsay is exactly what you accuse LJKS of reverting to! For the record, I'm tired of car magazines because the reporters tend to obsess over steering feel (without defining what they deem it to be) and lift-off oversteer (a questionable quality in a car). They like ‘drivers cars’, yet they complain that driver-centric machines like the Caterham 7 are ‘too raw’. I think your acquaintance Steve Cropley might take exception to your dismissal of car magazines. In defence of the magazines, I don't agree that they merely rewrite the public relations spiel; this is usually perpetrated by local newspapers who appease the local car dealerships. Check out the motoring pages of the Stroud News & Journal as an example. Using his enthusiasm for 4WS as an example, are you dismissing Setright's opinion of it as nothing but him rewriting PR? Simply because you do not agree with his opinion of 4WS? BB Last edited by Blenheim Boy; 13-10-09 at 06:40 PM.
|
|
13-10-09, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Under a picture of a Rolls-Royce:
The best of Bristish? Barker coachwork on Rolls-Royce chassis was no worse, no more opulent or irrelevant, than that of other famous London Coachbuilders. It revealed the British as a nation almost as immune as the Swiss to the real joys of motoring. A quote from LJKS, very funny and not very accurate because they also made bodies for some of our most sporting and excellent cars. Setright's comment might have been said by Clarkson who probably talks the most amusing rubbish on the £4.6 Billion a year BBC. After two other excellent programs; East Enders and Strictly Come Dancing, Top Gear is the BBC's most popular and the one that earns them the most money overseas, which is good because otherwise we'd be forced to pay even more for that smug narcissistic hegemony.(I have an excellent article from the Times to back that statement) Trust you to pick on me again Philippa and insult my favourite BBC program. Last time you said the 400 was ugly from the front! Clarkson is a God if only because Polly Toynbee hates him and he hates Billy Oddy. I haven't insulted the other two top programs and I don't think you should either if you haven't watched them. Sorry I've relented. Didn't an American senator once say that no one ever went broke by underestimating the tastes of the general public. Sadly in this instance they might. The BBC's blatantly populist, regardless of expense competition with the commercial channels has cost them dear. If a copy of the Stroud News and Journal appears in this house it is immediately transferred to the underside of either the 400 or more particularly the Bentley because it's One-Shot is the most incontinent.
|
|
13-10-09, 07:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LJK Setright
Dear all,
I'm wondering how one would go about unsubscibing to this discussion, not being a computer buff. Maybe the moderator can somehow help, or might he already be involved? I hope I didn't start it all with my very much "tounge-in-cheek" comment about the quirky 4 WS on my 1966 bulldozer. No doubt I will have been beaten to this comment by someone more adapt in typing. With best regards, A slightly worried Andrew (but I will lose no sleep about this).
|
|
13-10-09, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ashley,
At last! It seems we are finally meeting eye-to-eye... I think that you have taken Setright's comment out of context; he appears to be commenting on coachwork that Barker provided for a particular Rolls-Royce. He is not dismissing Barker’s work on other chassis. I imagine the era of motoring in question here is the early 20th century, when many moneyed folk chose regal, albeit clumsy bodies - ‘gin palaces’ you could say - to go on their chosen chassis, with no thought given to aerodynamics, centre of gravity, vehicle handling and so on. I find Clarkson to be a very entertaining writer/broadcaster. He does not claim to be any kind of historian. His television persona is more that of an entertainer, for better or worse. I prefer his writing; he does not ‘play to the gallery’ in print, like he does on the TV. However, I’m no great fan of Top Gear. It can be quite entertaining at times but as a motoring programme, it leaves a lot to be desired. Indeed, I believe James May has referred to it, tongue-in-cheek, as a ‘car-based light entertainment programme’. BB
|
|
13-10-09, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LJK Setright
Don't stop now, it's like watching a row at the bar over the finer
points of Cheekbottoms Crusty Old Ale versus Hornsnots 4X after everyones had a skinful. Fantastic to watch
|
|
13-10-09, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
how to unsubscribe
Quote:
You can only unsubscribe from a specific thread if you are subscribed that way in the first place, but you are probably subscribed to the "Other topics of interest" forum, rather than the individual thread. I hope that makes sense! Alternatively you can use the DEL key 
|
|
14-10-09, 12:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For a start it conflicts with the Jenkinson account, who described the drawings and engines that the Aldingtons brought back from Germany as "prizes", in other words, the spoils of war. There was no suggestion of any payment at all. The official Bristol/White line has always been that they were "war reparations". Clearly only one of these stories can be correct. Is it; (a) the Aldingtons unofficially grabbed what "prizes" they could because the Americans had ordered the whole plant to be crated up ready for shipment, or (b) if was official "war reparations" and all completely above board; or (c) it was a purchase and Bristol paid BMW for it.
|
|
14-10-09, 08:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
LJKS himself in "A Private Car" published in 1998 gives similar information on page 38 in footnote 45. Maybe he also read the BMW book! My point is that this story has been out there for at least 10 years so is hardly new! Kevin, I think your view that only one of the alternatives a), b) or c) could have been true is too simple. Bearing in mind the chaotic situation after the end of the war both in the UK and Germany, I am sure that it is a mixture of all three. I rest my case! Richard
|
|
14-10-09, 08:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LJK Setright
Kevin
As I previously stated, the main reason why most of us join car clubs and buy old cars is because we enjoy each others company and we enjoy making new friends. However Forums seem to bring out the worst in some people, who for all I know are as good as gold when you meet them. You seem extraordinarily confrontational and I don't understand why. My reaction to anyone who expresses an opinion on anything that interests me is to use it as a catalyst to do some research and see if I think they are right. I'd never challenge them unless I was certain of the facts. The Automobile is different from other magazines, but don't take my word for it, buy yourself a copy and read it. Mike Worthington Williams is or was the Chairman of an International Society of Vehicle Historians and most of the other contributors are members too. Their articles are biased toward history and they provide their sources for verification as is the case with the article on the 400 that you've challenged as you usually do. I do recommend the article in the Automobile for anyone who's interested in the early history of the company. It really does introduce new information of worth. And for those who challenge everything I say, I recommend asking early Bristol Experts like Andrew Blow and Geoff Dowdle before you decide to part with three quid! It is the Sept '09 issue and it's likely that copies are still available. Hopefully you won't suggest this is spamming for the Automobile. Ashley
|
|
14-10-09, 10:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LJK Setright
Richard
I'm sorry You're obviously far more knowledgeable than me, I should have said new to me. Ash
|
|
14-10-09, 10:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Of course this means that Setright was accurate where Jenks was not, which is the reverse of what Ashely would have us believe. How ironic.
|
|
14-10-09, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Furthermore it quotes a draft of a letter from the BMW board of management to Aldington in June 1948 suggesting a Bristol investment or participation in BMW for which BMW would establish an assembly line for a Bristol car with improved 2 liter engine and larger body. BMW could manufacture engine and body and the car would be designated a Bristol-BMW. This letter was never sent. What if......?! Richard
|
|
14-10-09, 11:38 AM
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Quote:
Let me remind you of some of the things you have said about him in this thread; Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Like Setright annoyed you, I find your unfair and unsubstantiated attack on his reputation rather annoying. This is probably why I come across as being confrontational. For the record, LJKS co-authored History of the World's Motorcycles. You say he was non technical? He started off writing for Engineering Magazine and was elected a Fellow of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in 1969. This is the highest class of elected membership, and is awarded to individuals who have demonstrated exceptional commitment to and innovation in mechanical engineering. He also co-authored "Valve mechanisms for high-speed engines: their design and development (2nd ed.)" with Philip H. Smith.
|
|
| Tags |
| leonard setright, ljk setright |
|
|
Linear Mode
