Talk:Sunbeam Tiger/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sourcing to avoid edit warring.

re recent edit warring

Can we please source the following:

• Series II production: 533 (NB this is given later as 534) or 633?

  Read the note explaining the discrepancy. Eric Corbett 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Series I prototype at Le Mans. Large or small engine?

• (This was sourced to Clarke 2005, p.125 by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs). Text was added here and reference added here. --Boson (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

• Was development from the second generation 1959 Alpine or the 1953 Alpine?

AFAIK, the 1959 Alpine (which the Tiger was directly based on) shares little more than a name with its 1953 predecessor.

• prototype budget: $600 or $800?
• What's an " XX-K" Jag? XK is unclear, XK-E is probable, XK-K is unintelligible.

  Read the attached note. Eric Corbett 15:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shelby prototype - Ford or B-W transmission?
• Total production, 7085, 7083 or 7128 ?
• Back left sparkplug is through the firewall, but how does one reach the forward plugs from there?
• Commonality (or not) of the rear suspension and axle with the Alpine?
• Panhard rods (plural). Two of them?!

None of these are well-enough sourced in the earlier version to be unequivocal here, but bulk reverts are not a productive way to proceed. If you're going to question any these, please add specific sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything is already properly sourced. Eric Corbett 15:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is a Featured Article, and almost literally everything was heavily discussed in the buildup process, Andy. Particularly things like the production numbers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So what's the rear axle? How many Panhard rods are there? How do you change the front three plugs through the firewall?

When I typed in this list, I thought "Some of these changes are just obviously wrong, maybe Eric was right to blanket revert the lot". Then I realised I was looking at a reverse diff. I don't have the sources – but I've broken more English back axles with careless V8s than you have. I don't know if a Dana 44 was used instead – but it makes sense as the sort of change that is required and at least one editor here claims to have a source that it was used. If it was, then it's correct to say the front suspension was shared, rather than the suspension overall. A comment about plural Panhard rods is such an eyebrow raiser that I don't know if it's a mistake in their number or if they're a mistake for the radius rods, or even a Watt's linkage, but either is more likely than two Panhard rods. Changing front plugs through the bulkhead is nonsense. Claiming development from the 1959 Alpine rather than the 1953 Alpine is obviously more direct as a lineage, a more accurate description of the engineering and is very far from the level of Eric's completely unacceptable comment to another editor.

It is a mistake to start thinking that FA means perfect, or even that a carefully-carried out FA-process means perfect. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you just here for a fight? 'Cos if you are I ought to warn you that I'm the mood for one. Eric Corbett 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric, if I wanted a fight, re-posting your last few comments at ANI would get you a block in moments. I'm just trying to clear up what is vague here, so that both sides (and that's what it has come down to) can agree on what is provably sourced to stop arguing over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So you are here for a fight. Try it then. Eric Corbett 16:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Andy, go find another place to pick a fight. This article is good as it is, so just leave it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"pick a fight"? You've been hanging around with Eric too long. Not everyone is such a drama queen as to see everything in his schoolyard terms.

This article isn't meant to be "good", it's already supposed to be better than that. At least one editor has raised some issues with it and although very minor they're more of an issue than should just be dismissed offhand. Looking at them in more detail, the FA version doesn't look exactly spotless. Now I'm interested in sorting out just what the details of the Tiger were, so that all this mess can be put to bed. Eric is the one insulting other editors and spoiling (yet again - what are you, twelve?) for a fight. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm most probably considerably older than you. It takes two (or more) for a fight, and your style seems to be just as combative as Eric's, though, for the time being at least, with fewer four letter words. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The other "editor" has referred to sources that are clearly incorrect, as several of their edits are, without a doubt, utterly wrong. Sunbeam cheaped out with a lot of the components on the Tiger, so you comparing it to other V8 cars is both original research, and not helpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"sources that are clearly incorrect, as several of their edits are, without a doubt, utterly wrong."

Examples please. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The production figures, which I have already mentioned at least once. Those who actually participated in the FA discussion spent a lot of effort trying to get them right, and used several sources before finally getting there. The user, whom you're backing up for no reason other than to cause a fight, was also altering various information, including quotes, which was already cited. If you're not going to bother reading anything, which evidence here suggests to be the case, kindly go away and desist in your trolling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that Spmdr is necessarily right on all counts, merely that they've raised issues that may deserve consideration and certainly don't warrant being dismissed as a "fucking idiot"[1]. The production numbers are complicated, the numbers they cite have been given in published books and that's why there's already a footnote explaining this in detail. So we refer them to that detail, and I'm sure that a GF editor would then (if you have to put it that way) "see the error of their ways". We all end up singing off the same hymnsheet and we make some progress. As to the "quote", then that's a quote that makes no sense and it already has a footnote on it to say so, and give a more likely explanation. We're out of direct quotes and into interpretation – something that it's not unreasonable for other editors to edit. It is inexcusable of Eric to repeatedly attack yet another editor in this way (Just WTF _is_ his problem?) and nor is it constructive of you to start accusing other editors of trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Come off it. If some random, brand-new, user wandered in to an article I'd put an enormous amount of work into, and brought up to FA status, and then added a bunch of factually inaccurate information, and continued to do so having been reverted by another user, then I'd have responded exactly as he did. And you'd be just as pissed off if the same happened to you. Eric made one comment about that user. One. Again, you're failing to read, and, as a result, you are basically trolling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric: two red cards. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I imagine you know where you can stick your red cards, and I hope it hurts. Eric Corbett 20:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with this article which I spent yesterday happily reading. Eric and all involved have done a tremendous job in making this what it is. You are here to provoke things and it really isn't worth it. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"nothing wrong"? Then show a cite for the multiple Panhard rods. These aren't major issues, but the attitude that "A Featured Article is perfect because it's featured" is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Tigers had only one Panhard rod, corrected. Eric Corbett 19:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't just with poor sourcing, this text was added without attribution for instance: "The rear axle was upgraded to the Dana 44", but the citation at the end of that paragraph (Robson 2012, p. 108) mentions nothing about a Dana 44. So where did that information come from? Eric Corbett 19:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Andy: At no point during the reading of this article did it ever occur to me that a cite was lacking for the mentioning of the Panhard rods. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't know. All I do know is that if this were a problem, then I'm bloody sure this would have come up at FAC. Did you bring this up at FAC? No you didn't. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Andy is referring to the fact that the Tiger had a single Panhard rod, so Panhard rods is incorrect. Now fixed. Eric Corbett 19:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I took no part in the FA review. Yet three months after the Olympians have declared this article to be perfect and inviolable, a couple of fresh editors look at it and spot holes immediately. Some of these points are such obvious tosh that they're self-evident to anyone with knowledge of similar vehicles, let alone the Tiger specifically. It's also clear that the FAC perfectionists have no idea what axle was fitted, that they're claiming it was the overloaded Alpine axle. Now that's a minor point, but as Tiger workshop manuals and owners' club commentary is available on line, which make the precise axle used very obvious indeed, it's clear that the god-tier editors haven't even looked that far! Yet they have the gall to describe other, lesser, editors as trolls and idiots. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, there's absolutely no doubt that the Tiger was fitted with a Salisbury axle, not the Dana 44 axle as claimed. Eric Corbett 22:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

[ec] I have no idea what axle was fitted. However US V8s break Brit rear axles, so an upgrade was very likely here and if one editor is claiming to have a source for this, then I'm going to hear them out. One of these versions is wrong, not just incomplete, because if the axle was changed then it's no longer the Alpine rear suspension. There's also a claim here about multiple Panhard rods, which is either wrong or bizarrely exceptional (such that it needs a really solid source). More likely it's either a minor inaccuracy about how many, or more seriously (such that it needs fixing) they're being confused with radius rods. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You're free to hear anyone out about anything, but there will be no change to the article without consensus on the talk page. And judging by the current discussion you or whoever is not going to get that. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you Andy I do know what rear axle was fitted, and the multiple Panhard rod confusion has been sorted. So let's see a source for the Dana 44 rear axle. I've seen no evidence that anyone has a source for that, have you? Certainly the editor you've come here to bat for hasn't provided one. Eric Corbett 20:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I realize that the internet doesn't necessarily give one editor insight into anothers' background, so I'll give you mine and you can make of that what you will. I've owned a Tiger since 1998, and in the fifteen years since then I've worked on pretty much every part of it from the interior to the wheel studs. I've also attended three of the five Sunbeam International ("SUNI") events in 1999, 2004 and 2009, and at that time I've talked to many Tiger owners including "spmdr", Norman Miller (who has maintained the definitive Tiger owners' registry since well before I bought my Tiger), Bill Carroll (author of "an exceptional motorcar"), and many other Tiger owners and enthusiasts including the folks that owned the original prototypes, both of which I've seen and touched. I have "The Book of Norman", "an exceptional motorcar", "the Tiger/Alpine Gold Portfolio" and a number of other contemporary and retrospective books. Bill Carroll's book, in particular, has several egregious errors - among other things, he contends that Mk1A production ended before my car was made. When I have time, I edit http://www.tigersunited.com .

The production numbers of 534 for Mk 2 and 7085 total Tigers (including Mk1, 1A and 2) comes from inspection of the Rootes production records by Norman Miller and other contemporary Tiger historians http://www.tigersunited.com/history/prodfigures.asp . The Tiger had one Panhard rod, which fit between the rear axle and the Alpine spare tire well. Between the Mk1A and Mk2 production break, the orientation of this panhard rod was changed so that the axle mount and chassis mount were each swapped left-for-right. All production Tigers had a Dana 44 type rear axle... this can be established from simply looking at examples that are known to be unmodified in that area. Early production Tigers had the Borg-Warner four-speed transmission but at some point (don't have the specific chassis # where the break occurred, can look it up in the book of Norman) the Ford "Toploader" was introduced. It has a different tailhousing from the transmission used in other contemporary Fords, and Tiger (1/1A) transmissions accordingly carry a HEH-E serial number prefixes which are not the same as that of the Mustang. The reversion of the "filter behind the generator" edit is particularly laughable, because any picture of a stock Tiger engine bay will clearly show the oil filter to be on the front of the left-side cylinder head, while the generator is mounted on the front of the right-side cylinder head.

So... when I read the edits attributed to SPMDR, which are in line with the current knowledge base of the community of actual Tiger owners and their research which includes trips the Coventry museum to inspect and copy Tiger production records; and the reversions, which are based on a book that is known to be inaccurate, I'm disappointed to see you're rejecting information simply because it doesn't fit the established dogma. Did you guys know that the identity of the third Tiger prototype as the Le Mans test mule was not proven until its second restoration, over 35 years after it was built? Sometimes new information comes to light due to digging by the owners, and not authors of books...

Here's a serious question that evidently needs answering in the light of this discussion (and my previous edits on this page about a decade ago, that were also rejected because they conflicted with "book knowledge"): When old books are factually inaccurate, but widely quoted even by current authors, and new information comes to light but is not circulated in print, how do you establish a proper citation?TheoSmit (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If it hasn't been published then by definition you can't. Eric Corbett 20:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If a piece of sourced content is known to be wrong, then you can (per WP:V) still publish the incorrect information, however to actually do so would be inanely dogmatic. If you ever find yourself doing this, prioritising dogma over accuracy, then it's time to get yourself well away from anything resembling an encyclopedia.

WP:V is a limitation on what can be written here, not a requirement for what must be written here. If the only sources are shown to be wrong, and the correct information can't be sourced in a format that passes the Academy of Laputa hereabouts, then the worst case is that we can't say anything about a topic. To deliberately insist on including something known to be wrong, just because there's a loophole that allows you to, is a pernicious mistake. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So what's known to be wrong? Eric Corbett 21:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The back axle is not the same as the Alpine axle, as claimed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that it is. Eric Corbett 22:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It says that the suspension at both ends was the same as the Alpine. When this changed to just the front suspension, that was reverted with extreme prejudice. Are you claiming that the different axle was known at FA time, but deliberately ignored as unimportant? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The type of suspension at each end was not changed from the Alpine series IV. The front was unequal length control arms with balljointed uprights, and the rear was elliptic leaf spring supporting a live axle. However, the spring rates at both ends were changed; the anti-roll bar was made larger for the Tiger; the shock absorbers were re-valved; the steering was changed from Burman recirculating-ball to rack and pinion with the steering links moved from behind the front axle to ahead (causing some infamous steering geometry effects as you get towards full lock), and the rear axle was substituted with the beefier Salisbury 4HA. So, the suspension was the same but other than the front control arms and the front uprights and hubs/brakes, no parts were identical. You can see the difference by looking up the various exploded diagrams in the service manuals for the two vehicles. TheoSmit (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. As a for-instance, here's this: http://www.tigersunited.com/resources/parts_service/LAT-brochure.pdf which is a scan of a dealer LAT catalog. Does such a scan suffice as a source? As a second for-instance, I can (actually, it's been in process for years) provide and make available on tigersunited.com, pictures of concours-accurate restoration of a Tiger. Does that suffice as a source for chassis details such as what rear-axle type and/or Panhard rod details? Last, Norm Miller's "The book of Norman" provides a listing of every single Tiger produced including VIN, chassis "JAL" number, and engine/trans/diff serial numbers, based on the Coventry build records. Would you accept the 534/7085 production numbers based on my say-so that these are the numbers in that book, or would you need to see the book itself, or scans from the book? All of these can probably be arranged... TheoSmit (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Rear axle: Salisbury 4HA as noted here: http://www.tigersunited.com/resources/wsm/wsmG3.asp . That page is a scan/OCR of the corresponding page (G3) of the Tiger Workshop manual which is available in print from Sunbeam Specialties. The Alpine did not have this rear axle (no, I don't have a citation for that). The 4HA has the same gear geometry and critical dimensions as the Dana 44 (http://www.freewebs.com/dobush/rearaxle.html, http://www.landroveraddict.com/forums/thread.cfm?threadID=73930 halfway down the page) and many contemporary Tiger owners use Dana 44 service parts and complete gearsets.TheoSmit (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It was indeed the Salisbury axle, as used on contemporary Jaguars and other British cars. I wonder why the self-annointed experts didn't know that? Eric Corbett 21:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to Alpine rear axle: see cross-section here http://www.sunbeamalpine.org/downloads/WSM%20124%20SI-SIV%20Manual/10%20Rear%20Axle%20%28G%29.pdf . The reason most Tiger owners, including the experts, don't make the distinction is that Dana 44 parts are easy to get and give access to a wide range of ratios and locking differentials, where the "proper" 4HA stuff is much harder to find at reasonable prices. Also, as you probably know, Salisbury is, and was then, a division of Dana Corp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_44.TheoSmit (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A couple of errors were repeatedly reinserted after Spmdr's well-intentioned but ham-fisted efforts to correct them: 1. The Le Mans cars did not run the later, larger engine. They had the 260. Tiger, an Exceptional Motorcar p. 35 [2] 2. The Tiger was not a development of the 1953-onwards (Sunbeam Talbot) Alpine, but of the Sunbeam Alpine introduced in 1958/9 (same source, p. 9).

The article may contain other fundamental errors (I haven't checked). Perhaps Spmdr, who seems knowledgeable, will come back to it when he's unblocked and after he has boned up on WP:RS etc. EC could assist him with the writing? Writegeist (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the three Le Mans cars was fitted with the larger engine, but not until after the 1964 race, so that may be where the confusion lies. Corrected now. Eric Corbett 02:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

First I should note that I was incorrect in calling the Tiger's rear axle a Dana 44; although the Salisbury 4HA was basically a Dana design made under license by Salisbury. Salisbury was already at that time a division of the Dana corporation, which is well established fact. The "minor suspension modifications" in the "development" paragraph is misleading, since the only suspension parts shared between the Tiger and the Alpine are the upper and lower front control arms and the front spindles and uprights.

Second I'd like to present some further information on the Tiger transmissions that should lead to some updates in the Wiki text, because several passages that describe the transmissions used at various times of development and production are known to be incorrect. The Toploader (http://www.davidkeetoploaders.com/toploaderhistory.htm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Toploader_transmission) did not enter production until 1964. Therefore it would have been impossible for the "Shelby" Tiger prototype (the white car) to use the toploader transmission, as suggested in the main article in the "initial prototypes" paragraph. In fact, Bill Carroll's book "An Exceptional Motorcar" includes on page 19 a reprint of a memo from John Panks to Brian Rootes, where it specifically notes that the Shelby prototype has a Borg-Warner manual transmission (and the first prototype has a Ford Fairlane automatic transmission - this was the subject of some debate up above).

Further it would have been extremely unlikely for the le Mans coupes to be outfitted with the Toploader transmissions because they would have been in very short supply in early 1964 (Ford was just introducing them in the 1964 model year) while the Borg-Warner T-10 was readily available at the time, with many gear ratios that would make it suitable as a racing transmission as well as an aluminum alloy case that was significantly lighter than the cast-iron toploader case.

Bill Carroll noted that preproduction Tigers and production Tigers up to serial number B9470057 were built with the Borg-Warner T-10, and after that were built with the toploader. This is also noted in Norm Miller's "the Book of Norman". While the shop manual reports that Mk1 Tigers including and after B9470057 got the HEH-E transmissions and the Mk2 Tigers the HEH-B (and this is duly copied by Bill Carroll), in fact the Mk2 Tigers got the HEH-CF as noted in the Book of Norman's Tiger registry ledger. This is corroborated by the toploader type listing here http://www.davidkeetoploaders.com/idchart1.htm, which notes that the HEH-B designation was used in the 1964 model year and the HEH-CF in 1965. This chart also notes that the specific toploader transmission used in the Tiger at its introduction (the HEH-E) was used in the Mercury Meteor and the Ford Fairlane, not the Mustang as suggested in the Wiki article.

So I would suggest the following changes, to start with: 1. In the "Initial Production" and "Competition History" sections, it is incorrect to say that Toploaders were ever fitted to the prototype or to the le Mans race cars - they all used Borg-Warner T-10 transmissions. 2. In the "Production" paragraph, the reference to a "Mustang" transmission should be replaced with "Ford Fairlane" transmission, since that most closely reflects the reality. The eventual change to the HEH-CF transmission for the Mk2 Tiger also coincides with Ford's change from a five bolt to a six-bolt block to bellhousing bolt pattern, larger input bearing on the transmission, and a wider spaced mounting pattern between the transmission and the bellhousing itself - these changes also make it unlikely that the 1964 HEH-B would have been used in the 1967 Tiger Mk2. TheoSmit (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What makes http://www.davidkeetoploaders.com/idchart1.htm a reliable source? Seems to be just a commercial web site. Eric Corbett 05:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, David Kee is one of the foremost authorities on the Toploader transmission. His entire business centers on rebuilding or building new examples of the Toploader transmission. You would suppose that it is to his advantage to present the most accurate information possible as to what transmissions went in what vehicle lines. But, if that's not adequate, I did find this reference in Hemmings (and it has gone out in print): http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2008/10/01/hmn_feature22.html that does note the Tiger transmission as being the same as the Fairlane model and not the Mustang. TheoSmit (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Holy hell, I leave for a couple of weeks and a fight breaks out. There are a limited number of actual print sources on the Tiger, and every one of them (and I do mean EVERY ONE OF THEM) was either purchased or read by Eric and myself. The amount of research that went into this was staggering. Many of the weaker sources DID give conflicting information, and had to be individually vetted. You guys have no idea how much time that took. To cherry pick and say "look, this one source disagrees, so you must be wrong!" shows a lack of real research. In an article like this, there is always the potential for a mistake, but pointing to a singular, isolated source (that we probably already read and discounted) isn't the way to demonstrate an error, nor is edit warring. If someone wants to "prove" a mistake, you need to at least put in as much research time as the people who created the "mistake" before jumping to conclusions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the workshop manual? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If you'd come to the Tigers mailing list that's been up and running for about 20 years (http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/tigers), or contacted one of the west coast California clubs such as STOA or CAT, you would have reached people that have original paperwork relating to the Tiger prototypes and production, people that own the original prototypes and/or the race cars, and people that knew Ken Miles, Phil Remington, Ian Garrad, George Boskoff and others that were involved in the Tiger program. Some of those people have devoted a substantial portion of their adult life to researching the history of the Tiger. I understand Wikipedia's process for vetting information and that it is necessary to have print references... but the end result here today is a mix of popular myth and outright misinformation. Just so you know, those people that I referred to above that have hard data and first-hand knowledge of the people and the specific cars are still interested in contributing to this Wiki page... but you have to tell us how to provide (or what to provide) as an adequate source or reference information.TheoSmit (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Coming in from the side on this one... Theo, if you haven't already, have a look through WP:VERIFY and W:ORIGINAL. Print versus on-line sources aren't an issue - the important bit is that they are reliable, published, ideally secondary sources, and that the edit avoids formng original research. It's probably then worthwhile taking the proposed addition or change (e.g. Add "Toploaders were never fitted to the prototype or to the In the Ile Mans race cars - they all used Borg-Warner T-10 transmissions." - my apologies if I've mangled this!) and consider what would explicitly go in the reference citation (e.g. the webpage details and publisher, or the book/author/page number etc.). If that stacks up as a reliable, published, secondary source, the discussion become a lot easier. If others disagree about its reliability, or if other reliable sources clash with that source, it's still easier to progress the debate with the wording and citation formed up.

The other point I typically make in my normal editing area (medieval history) is that where a specialist disagrees with the established literature, they may be better off publishing independently, rather than straying into Original Research territory on the wiki. I'm not suggesting this is necessarily the right answer here, but sometimes the best place to progress a substantive or novel discussion - particularly if based on original paperwork, personal contacts, personal experience etc. - isn't on an encyclopedia page - it's in an article, a book or a decent personal webpage. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Theo - There is always the possibility that the information provided is incorrect. Eric and I both know this. The point is only that we didn't rely on any single source for most of it and had to filter a great deal of sources, so changing the information should be done via discussion about the "new" source, which may have already been discounted for various reasons. Or it may be completely correct. @Andy - There really is no reason to be a smart ass here, you are welcome to actually help the process by providing information without the attitude. I've never said a rude comment to you, ever. As someone who has actually used shop manuals, I know they are useful but not infallible. They are also not strictly third party, but that doesn't bother me since for many facts, they are the best source. For this article, it wouldn't shock me if we have to provide two sets of facts with sources, and declare that difference sources disagree, which isn't so uncommon. The article made FA, which means its is a pretty good framework and the sourcing stands up to scrutiny, even if a few points may need correcting. We are all better served if we deal with problems one at a time, in a civil and cooperative manner. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  Dennis: Buck Trippel, the current president of the California Association of Tiger Owners (CAT), reviewed the Wiki article and noted four dozen errors. He's the current owner of the Sports Car Forum racing Tiger (#74) as well as several other Tigers, and has devoted thousands of hours of time as well as no small financial effort to research Tiger history. He is personally familiar with many of the people that were involved with the Tiger development program, and he wants you to contact him directly to discuss how these errors can be rectified and how to improve the general content of the Wiki page. He's listed in the Manhattan Beach (CA) telephone directory. TheoSmit (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  I don't call, but he can start an account here and just email me the corrections, along with sourcing for the corrections. Hopefully he understands that none of us are perfect and that HE might be wrong on some as well. I will happy to transfer the information here at the talk page, and we can deal with them one at a time. I'm not married to any facts, I've only done my best to source the information, just as Eric has done. This is a remarkably difficult topic to source accurately due to the low production numbers and moderate coverage. I'm confident we are both happy to correct any facts that can sourced better than the existing information. Accuracy IS the goal of everyone here. I just don't want a bunch of drama during the process, it isn't necessary or helpful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• The kerb weight as listed on the top-right information box is wrong. No production Tiger ever weighed 2200 pounds - probably Robson quoted an Alpine weight by mistake. The correct weights (according to the stats in Bill Carroll's book, which are copied from the workshop manual) are 2565 lbs (1163 kg) for the Mk1 Tiger and 2574 lbs (1168 kg) for the Mk2. If nobody objects I'll edit that in? TheoSmit (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  A kerb weight of 2200 lbs does seem very improbable I agree, as the kerb weight of the standard Alpine IV was 2220 lbs. Eric Corbett 00:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Production Numbers Based on "The Book of Norman" and the Jensen production ledgers

In 1993, Norm Miller produced "The Book of Norman", which is so far one of the few Tiger books that seriously delves into the production history of the Tiger, using the original Jensen production ledgers as well as owners' reports (submitted to George Fallehy and later Norm himself) as reference material. The Jensen ledgers are still archived at the Coventry Transport Museum and are available for viewing by visitors. This information was used to create "the International Register of Sunbeam Tigers", which is still actively managed by Norm at this site. Norm also maintains a page of Tiger information including things that have come to light after the publication of his book, here. The Book of Norman includes a listing of all Tigers produced by Jensen as well as the several prototypes that were built prior to Jensen involvement, the 73 Tigers that were discovered to have been built in South Africa as part of Rootes' CKD (Completely Knocked Down) program, including the ownership at the time of printing for the Tigers whose whereabouts had been verified by Norm or George. Based on that data, these are the production numbers:

Production	Serial Numbers	Production Dates	Total	Notes
Le Mans Racers	B9499997 to B9499999	April, May 1964	3
Mk1 production	B9470001 to B9473762 + B9473767	64/4/07 to 65/8/24	3763	B9473763 to B9473766 were never assigned to a car, note overlap with Mk1A production
Mk1A prototype	B9479975, B9479976, PH650039, PH650040	July, Aug 1965	4
Mk1A production	B382000001 to B382002706	65/8/09 to 66/12/30	2706	Note overlap with start of Mk2 production
Mk2 Pilot Production	B382100001, B382100002	66/12/19	2	B382100003 to B382100099 were never assigned to a car
Mk2 Production	B382100100 to B382100633	66/12/23 to 67/6/27	534
African CKD Production	B9480001 to B9480072	1965 to 1967	73	Highest body number assignment suggests 73 cars were built
Total			7085

I haven't seen the Jensen ledgers personally but based on the way they are described in Norm's book, it appears that the existence of B9473763 to B9473766 and B382100003 to B382100099 can be refuted because they do not have an entry in the ledgers. Hopefully this provides useful insight to the overall production number question and (if you accept the Jensen ledgers as a valid source, which is deemed to be fairly irrefutable by Tiger owners) then it resolves the Mk2 production number question. It should be noted that in addition to the Jensen ledger data, neither George Fallehy nor Norm Miller, in their stewardship of the Tiger registry, has ever seen or heard of an owner reporting a Mk2 with a serial number in that first 100 (other than '01 and '02). The existence of the South African Tigers and their B948xxxx serial numbers is supported by actual registration and ownership confirmation of at least 40 of these cars (as of TBON's printing) TheoSmit (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't find that very convincing, but others may be more easily persuaded. Eric Corbett 22:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but unless you give me (and the rest of the people that do think that original factory production records are a reasonable reference) a reason why it's not convincing, I don't see why the information put forth by Robson, Clarke, or Carroll should be given any more weight. I would particularly discredit Carroll's information since, among other things, his production information doesn't include the Tiger sitting in my garage (that being B382002705). The data listed in TBON details each production variant individually, and among other things this can show you how a clerical error by any author (such as omitting prototypes, or neglecting the South African Tigers) can lead to the stated variations in "total" production. What, in your opinion, makes one Tiger reference more convincing than another? TheoSmit (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My reservations are summed up by "... if you accept the Jensen ledgers as a valid source". I regard them simply as one of a number of sources that conflict. Eric Corbett 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

From way up in the "math" section: I've got no doubt that Robson's figures are definitive, as he claims to have cross-checked them against recorded chassis numbers: 1649 cars produced in 1964, 3020 in 1965, and 1781 in 1966, which comes to 6450, all Tiger Is. The last Tiger I was assembled on 9 December 1966. Then there were 633 Tiger IIs produced in 1967, giving us a grand total of 7083. I'll go through and make sure we're consistent. Eric Corbett 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC). The Jensen logs indicate that the Tiger I own (B382002705) was made on December 30, 1966. Do you suppose that Jensen made that up? By the way, that whole thread between you and Dennis there is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You start out being unsure, admit to guesswork and a lack of verifiability of any of the information, and by the end of it you're slapping each other on the back because you've "solved" things although through it all you note that you're making assumptions and approximations. On the other hand, Norm Miller's book (do you have a copy, or have you ever seen/read it?) provides a car-by-car account, introduces the African CKD Tigers, and moreover provides cross-check comments on every entry in the Jensen ledgers to note potential conflict or errors. TheoSmit (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Norm Miller is one person, relying on what records he can discover from what remains of those records maintained by a now defunct motor manufacturer. We have acknowledged that there is some controversy over the actual number of Tiger IIs produced, and that ought to be the end of the story, unless you want to add a sentence or two about Norm's research. The train wreck is happening right here and now, because you're not listening to what you're being told. Eric Corbett 20:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that anyone can make omissions, transcription errors, and so on. Even Norm. But you'll note that Clarke(2005) made the comment that Norm's book was highly regarded... I dug up Mike Taylor's book to look through his notes on production figures (page 247 of the 1991 edition).

Production	Serial Numbers	Production Dates	Total	Notes
1964 Mk1 production	B9470001 to B9471649	64/4/07 to 65/8/24	1649	Total 1964 production 1649
1965 Mk1 production	B9471650 to B9473762	64/4/07 to 65/8/24	2113	Total Mk1 production 3762
1965 Mk1A production	B382000001 to B38200908	65/8/09 to 65/12/31	908	Total 1965 production 3021
1966 Mk1A production	B382000909 to B382002706	66/1/01 to 66/12/09	1798	Taylor calculates this range as 1797. Total Mk1A production 2706
1966 Mk2 Production	B382100100 to B382100129	66/12/23 to 67/6/27	30	Total 1966 production 1828
1967 Mk2 Production	B382100130 to B382100633	66/12/23 to 67/6/27	504	Taylor calculates this range as 503...
Total			7002	Taylor somehow gets to 7067, table notes 572 Mk2's sold even though only 534 were built.

The reason I'm laying it out like this is so that we can see where the similarities are to other authors and where the differences are. Taylor has made a fairly huge consistency error in his own table. He's broken out the yearly build by serial number and date range, then on the right he notes sales figures. For the mk1 and Mk1A, the sales figures are one or two cars less than the total production - that can happen for any number of reasons. But for the Mk2, the sales figure is 38 greater than the number he reports as having been built.

Compared to Robson, the 1964 production agrees, the 1965 production is off by 1 (although Taylor notes 1965 sales are 3020), 1966 production is off by 17 Mk1's and 30 mk2's, and the remainder is off due to the conflict between the assumed start numbering of Mk2 production. Compared to Norm's book, Taylor does not include the prototypes for each series, omits B9473767, and doesn't list the South African Tigers probably because they were unknown or unreported at that point. Looking through the production register in Norm's book shows that 17 Mk1A's were built after December 9 (when Mk2 production started), and I suggest this explains the 1966 Mk1A production discrepancy between Taylor's total and Robson's.

I did also find in the "Sunbeam Tiger and Alpine Gold Portfolio" compiled by R.M.Clarke, two references to the 571 number... on page 171 and 182 (the Practical Classics article reprint and the Classic and Sportscar article reprint). However, both of those articles also have incorrect Mk1/Mk1A production breakdowns and no further detail, so I don't think they have merit.

The point of all this, first off, is that one can get different numbers by choosing to omit prototypes (that would account for about 11 Tigers from Norm's 7085 number) or due to the fact that the 72 or 73 South African Tigers remained unknown to most Tiger researchers until the 1980's (after Taylor's book and Carroll's book went to print) and it appears that Robson also hasn't included them anywhere. So, if any "definitive" total could be calculated, it should be accompanied by a note saying what was included, what was deliberately left out, and which parts are controversial. Because of the rather unique history of the Tiger and its production method(s), the total number of cars is significant to the article and my opinion is it deserves more detail in the article than it currently has.

Last thing on the Mk2 production: As you may know, when the bodies were built at Pressed Steel, they got a chassis tag that is separate from the VIN plate, but it's screwed to the scuttle just rearward of the VIN plate and along the edge of the panel. Alpines got plates with the ID "SALxxxxxx" where the xxxxxx was a six-digit number; Tigers got plates with the ID "JALxxxxxx". Presumably this indicated the subsequent assembly location: Sunbeam (for Alpines) and Jensen (for Tigers). The numbers were sequential in the order that the bodies were built; but (at least for Tigers) there is not an exact linear correspondence between the JAL numbers and the VIN serial numbers because the body order frequently got mixed up in shipping. For the Mk1A Tigers the range is JAL660000 to JAL662705; For the Mk2 Tigers, the number range is reported (in Norm's book, from the Jensen ledgers) to start with JAL70000; JAL70001 corresponds to B382100101 and JAL700533 is assigned to B382100632 (JAL700532 goes with B382100633). There are no body numbers in the log higher than JAL700533. This would support the position that the number range B382100003 to B382100099 is vacant and was never built, giving 2 pre-production and 534 production Mk2s. TheoSmit (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that supports the vacant B-382100003 to B-382100099 range at all, although I agree that for the figure of 536 to be correct that's what would have to have happened. What solid evidence do we have that the range is vacant? Eric Corbett 16:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Better than FA

I have found that doing what Wiki suggests can can get some people VERY excited.

And it appears to be a vise and virtue of Wiki.

I congratulate ALL who have assisted with the effort to bring this page to FA status.

However, As Wiki has predicted, most text can be improved.

It's time to bring FA to the next level.

Spmdr (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article's Background section says the Tiger was a development of the [Sunbeam Talbot] Alpine from 1953. I provided one reliable secondary source (WP:RS) for the correct information here on the talk page. Dennis Brown's defensive assertion that '[i]f someone wants to "prove" a mistake, you need to at least put in as much research time as the people who created the "mistake" before jumping to conclusions' is idiosyncratic to say the least. Spmdr, if you cite an additional reliable secondary source giving the correct year (for the Sunbeam Alpine), that should surely be sufficient for the revision to be made. Writegeist (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the name 'Alpine', what does the '59 Alpine (and thus the Tiger) have in common with the '53 Alpine? I'd charitably assumed that this was a typo, because it makes zero sense for the engineering of the car. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There seems to be an awful lot of reading things that the article doesn't actually say going on here. The sentence in question says this: "The Sunbeam Tiger was a development of the Sunbeam Alpine introduced by the British manufacturer Rootes in 1953." Do you dispute that the Alpine was introduced in 1953? Where does the article say that the Tiger has anything in common with the 1953 Alpine engineering wise? In fact it makes it very clear later on that the Tiger was based on the Alpine IV, itself a redesign of the 1953 Alpine. But no doubt we could make that clearer if that's what you're upset about. Eric Corbett 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

All we're talking about is a correctly-used comma. However with the "An FA becomes Gospel" attitude, the literal implication of it, as it stands, is that the Tiger derives from the '53 Alpine, not the '59. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're upset about a comma? Is that it? Eric Corbett 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The 1959 Series Alpine had nothing that derived from the 1953 Alpine. The bodywork was designed from the ground up by Kenneth Howes and the chassis was derived from the Hillman Husky. [3]. It is correct to say the Tiger derived from the 1959 Alpine and not the 1953 model.TheoSmit (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to make a career as a fiction writer? Was the Alpine not introduced in 1953? Where does the article claim that the Tiger was "derived from" the 1953 Alpine? Eric Corbett 19:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

From the first sentence in "Background": ""The Sunbeam Tiger was a development of the Sunbeam Alpine, introduced by the British manufacturer Rootes in 1953." It is true that the "Mark" Alpine was introduced in 1953; but it was a development of the Talbot coupe. It is not true that the Tiger was developed from that Alpine. The Tiger was a development of the totally redesigned "Series" Alpine that was introduced in 1958 and in production from 1959 to 1968. I'm not trying to make stuff up - just being accurate in the details.TheoSmit (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Without attempting to provide WP:RS level references at this moment, the genealogy of the Tiger is that it's based on the "Series" Alpine chassis, which hit production in 1959. The "Series" Alpine chassis, in turn, had bodywork designed by Kenneth Howe, but some of its chassis sheetmetal was based on that of the [4] . The 1959 "Series" Alpine and the 1953 "Mark" Alpine don't share anything other than the name.TheoSmit (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I just read up on WP:RS and this makes things interesting, to say the least. Basically, if ruthlessly enforced, this gives more credibility to a coffee-table book by a 'volume' author than it does to a self-published book by a guy who's made it his life work to determine how and why his car came to be and dug back to original source information in order to get as close to the truth as he could. What's more, WP:RS makes it hard to present original-source information as a counterpoint to something that's appeared in the popular press.TheoSmit (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of us already knew that. Eric Corbett 18:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

But the problem is that WP:RS is a pretty sharp tool and it cuts both ways. Eric, we (the Tiger owners) are trying to work with you to create a page that's (to our standards and knowledge) accurate, while also meeting Wiki's verifiability expectations. If you insist that the way the page is now is "the truth" because you read it in a few books and refuse to accept expert input, then you're eroding the value of Wikipedia and making a travesty of the process.TheoSmit (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

But who's to be the judge of the truth? You and Andy Dingley? I don't insist that the page is now "the truth", all I insist on is that you bring proper sources to the table, not self-published sources, primary sources, commercial web sites, or original research. Eric Corbett 19:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I can be a judge of some of the truth, actually. Here's an example: I can look at my car, and note that the firewall does not bear any sledgehammer marks. Ergo, the popular story about bodyshells being prepared for engine installation in that way doesn't apply to at least my car. Many other Tiger owners have noted the same thing about their cars. The general consensus is that while Roy Axe probably didn't make it up, the location he quotes in that context is the Thrupp & Maberly plant, not the Jensen factory, and therefore the production Tigers were built using more sane methods. Many authors, though, can't resist repeating this story and omitting critical details so that it appears that all Tigers were built by neanderthals. The Mike Taylor book describes Jensen's production process in quite some detail, while Bill Carroll's book seems to focus more on very early development stages including stuff that Rootes did internally. They can both be right, but they did not both take place at the same time and it is incorrect to describe events that took place at one time and then by omission make it appear that they took place at another.TheoSmit (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If information found in a "properly" published book can be shown to be inconsistent with reality, while information found by a self-published author can be shown to apply to all known Tigers, then to me, it seems evident that the "properly" published book does not pass the "reputable" standard and should therefore not be regarded as accurate. On the other hand, the self-published author can establish his reputability by the fact that there exists no valid counterexample (in steel and rubber) to the material he's written. If you insist that "truth" is not as important as ensuring the process is satisfied to your expectations, then what you're losing is "relevance" and eventually people are going to figure this out and stop using Wikipedia as a reference source.TheoSmit (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If people are looking for "the truth" then they can always consult experts such as yourself. Fundamentally though Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, reporting what reliable secondary sources say, not car owners. As it happens though I think there is some reasonable doubt as to which company it was that employed the big hammer approach to fitting the engine, and that might be worth exploring in a bit more detail. Eric Corbett 20:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:Verifiability, not truth may apply. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability never trumps truth. It may restrict the amount of truth one can publish, but it should never contradict it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And who's to be the judge of truth? You? Eric Corbett 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I specifically then refer Eric and Dennis to this paragraph. Since the matter of Tiger production numbers is (by their own admission in the "math" section above) uncertain, they should not have tried to come up with an aggregate number on their own, nor cited the numbers stated in one reference as fact. The right thing to do would be to present a summary of values attributable to different sources. TheoSmit (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I specifically refer you to the note in the article explaining and listing the various discrepancies. It really would be greatly to your advantage to actually read the article before assuming it says something that it doesn't. Eric Corbett 19:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I had read your note but that is hardly sufficient. Given the uncertainty you admitted in the "math" section, it seems inappropriate to then publish the value 633 in the main text while consigning the other information to a footnote. The production totals of the Mk1 Tigers are also not in agreement between the different sources, and no mention is made of that.TheoSmit (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You may possibly have noted that two sources are cited as agreeing with the figure of 633 for the Tiger IIs, or more likely not. How many sources agree with your suggested figure? BTW, if you make any more corrections please try to do them properly. The infobox in the lead no longer agrees with statement in the Series I section that "The kerb weight of the car increased from the 2,220 lb (1,010 kg) of the standard Alpine to 2,653 lb (1,203 kg)." Eric Corbett 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a table based on the data in Mike Taylor's book, up in the previous section. He supports the 534 Tiger Mk2 number. He's got a big disagreement in the "sales" part of the table relative to the "production" but I'm thinking he probably included sales of the CKD South African Tigers which were not accounted for in his production table. I don't dispute the existence of the 633 value, and I can see how a person would arrive at that conclusion but it's not supported by the original build records nor by the chassis numbering from Pressed Steel (as logged in the Jensen production ledgers, and verifiable by checking actual cars). My argument is that even though the Jensen production ledgers are not by themselves considered a high grade reference by Wiki's standards for WP:RS, they are usable and should be used to validate the numbers quoted by authors such as Robson, Clarke, Taylor, and Carroll. TheoSmit (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the year of the Alpine, I direct eyes to Carroll (1988) ISBN 910390-26-6 page 9. Also in TIGER the making of a Sports Car Mike Taylor (1979) ISBN 0 85614 052 X, page 19. And get a load of this title: Sunbeam Alpine & Tiger 1959-1967 R.M. Clarke Brooklands Books ISBN 0 906 589 576, I'll look through for page numbers if anyone would like me to.

Spmdr (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

But aren't you still missing the point? If you're arguing for the addition of a sentence saying that the Tiger was based on a particular series of Alpine then fine, let's see it. Eric Corbett 00:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Eric:

"Some of us already knew that. Eric"

"It really would be greatly to your advantage to actually read the article ... Eric"

"You may possibly have noted ... or more likely not. Eric"

We are trying to figure out how to bring some real-life relevance to this page within the guidelines of Wikipedia. It would be helpful, if you were to try to think of ways that we can use original source information to support or discredit the WP:RS "proper" sources, because as you can see, comparing the "proper" sources against each other directly gives you no inkling as to whether or not their research was actually any good. Way back when, everybody said the world was flat... because all the books (except for a couple of obscure ones) said the world was flat...TheoSmit (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your analogy with the flat-earth myth is not a terribly good one, but no matter. We can't use original source material and that's that; we're dependant on secondary sources, not primary ones. All we can really do, I think, is to make the discrepancies between the various sources more prominent and offer a range of possible production numbers. I take it we're all agreed that there couldn't have been more than 633 Tiger IIs produced? So what's the lowest number you've come across? Eric Corbett 15:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The lowest number is 534 (Mike Taylor, Norm Miller) or 536 if you include the two pilot production cars (B382100001 and B382100002) that spawn the controversy to begin with.TheoSmit (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So given we agree that the chassis number of the first production Tiger II was B-382100001, and the chassis number of the last was B-382100633, which is where the number 633 comes from, what evidence do we have that Jensen skipped from B-382100002 to B-382100100 to give a production run of 536? Is it simply that nobody has discovered Tiger B-382100050 for instance, or any record of it in Jensen's surviving ledgers? Eric Corbett 16:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically, yes, but consider that B-382100001 and B-382100002 were pilot production cars and Rootes habitually serialized their pilot cars apart from the main production run. Their existence is not reported at all by Mike Taylor (he also didn't report on any of the other pilot production Tigers). The JAL body sequence numbers for the Mk2's are shown in the Jensen logs to start at or near JAL700000 with B382100100 (JAL700001 definitely goes with B382100101), and the highest body sequence number is JAL700533. Offhand I don't recall how many Tiger Mk2's were confirmed to survive at the time Norm's book was published, but I can look that up later. The probability of a sequential solid gap of 98 cars remaining undiscovered at this time is very low. The only reason that one can use 633 as a total number of Mk2 production and still end up with a reasonable total (i.e. in line with other published totals) for Tiger production is that one needs to simultaneously ignore the existence of the South African Tigers.TheoSmit (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

So basically we have no evidence at all that Jensen/Rootes left the range B-382100003 to B-382100099 vacant, but they might have done as nobody has even seen B-382100050. How would you propose wording that piece of original research, and to whom would you attribute it? I think we ought to mention the 70-odd Tiger's assembled in South Africa though, even if we don't include them in the total, so would you like to propose some form of wording and atttribution? Eric Corbett 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll write something up (tonight, I'm at UTC-6 here). Attribution I'd put towards Norm, since it's in his book, based on the Jensen records; validation of Norm's book by Clarke(2005)... that's about the best that can be done in terms of validating Norm's work by published references.TheoSmit (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Eric Corbett 21:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Production numbers for Versions section

Eric, I looked up the details on the Mk2 survivors as of 1993 as compiled by Norm Miller and George Fallehy. Out of the 536 Mk2 Tigers listed in the Jensen ledgers (counting the pilot production units), 264 were 'known' to the registry in that they had a specific owner listed against the car, or they were listed as 'Junked', indicating that that car was known to have been dismantled or destroyed. In the list of 534 from B382100100 to B382100533, the largest sequential gap of 'unknown' Tigers was eight. With this information, it seems extremely unlikely that a further 98 cars all in serial number sequence had never been seen.

I'd like to propose the following text below to lead out the "Versions" section:

The Tiger's production spanned three visually distinct groups, although Rootes only explicitly designated two, the "Tiger 260" and the "Tiger 289". Enthusiasts generally refer to the first group as the Mark I, produced with the body panels used on the Alpine Series IV; the second group as the Mark 1A, produced with the Alpine Series V body panels, and finally the Mark II, also built using the body panels used on the Alpine Series V, but with the larger Ford 289 cu in (4.7 L), improved transmission gearing, and cosmetic trim differences.

The overall number of cars produced is reported differently by several sources. Jensen production records indicate the production (including pilot production cars) of 3767 Mark I's in 1964-1965; 2706 Mark 1A Tigers built in 1965-1966; and 536 Mark II's in 1966-1967. Additionally, 73 Mark 1 Tigers were exported to South Africa in complete knock-down (CKD) form and assembled there, with unique serial numbers outside of the range of Jensen-produced cars. The International Registry of Sunbeam Tigers reports the survival of approximately 3000 Tigers up to 1993.

The production total of Mark II's can be confused because the two pilot production units were serialized as B382100001 and B382100002 while the remainder of the known Mark II production spans B382100100 to B382100633. This can be interpreted to mean that 633 Mark 2 Tigers were built; however, there are no known examples of Tigers in the serial number range B382100003 to B382100099, while approximately half of the remainder were confirmed to exist by owners' reports as of 1993.

The Series II Tiger, fitted with the larger Ford 289 cu in (4.7 L), was intended exclusively for export to America and was never marketed in the UK, although six right-hand drive models were sold to the Metropolitan Police for use in traffic patrols and high-speed pursuits; four more went to the owners of important Rootes dealerships.

I'm open to suggestions... On page 56 of Bill Carroll's book he talks about Fallehy getting a report of a B948xxxx Tiger. At the time they had no idea what it was... as I re-read all this stuff I see that many of the authors had hints that there were interesting things behind all the production data, but didn't dig down to the bottom of the story.TheoSmit (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me and seems to summarise the uncertainty about numbers pretty well. If Dennis Brown agrees, I'd be happy to add something along those lines to the article. Eric Corbett 11:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric, are you at all in touch with Dennis? From his talk page it appears that he may be substantially occupied with Real Life concerns and may not have much time or inclination to participate in updating this page in the next little while.TheoSmit (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll email Dennis and ask him if he can find a few minutes to look this over. Eric Corbett 12:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of info we need here if we want this article to be the most reliable and informative source on the Tiger. That was the problem with researching this article to begin with, so much conflicting information spread over a variety of sources, and frankly, there are no simple, singular answers to some of the "facts". I haven't checked all the sources on this, but I trust you two have. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Images of non-stock Tigers included in the article.

Shouldn't this article, for the most part, display images of "stock" Tigers? I.e., without chrome headlight rings, incorrect steering wheels, aftermarket road wheels, etc? Pragmath (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. As a reference work WP should display only true examples of the subject under study. Eddaido (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• In a perfect world, perhaps, but free images of Tigers are as rare as the Tiger themselves. I spent two weeks searching for them. It is better to have a full array of representative Tigers, even if some aren't stock, than to have fewer images. You can also qualify that the car isn't stock with the image. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I am very happy to try to help if Pragmath will work with me to separate out the modified cars in Wikimedia. Are there any modified cars displayed in the photos on this (linked) page? Eddaido (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Date of introduction of Alpine

The date of introduction of the Alpine was recently changed (by user Pragmath) from 1953 to 1959. As punctuated, the original date of 1953 would appear to be correct. I presume the change to 1959 was intended to indicate that the Tiger was developed from the Alpine Series I, introduced in 1959). Though this could be treated as a matter of punctuation (a comma being used before a supplementary explanation, with no comma before restricting or defining information), I think the sentence should perhaps be reworded to clarify exactly what is meant (possibly including both dates), preferably by someone with access to the cited source. --Boson (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)(Punctuation fixed --Boson (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC))

I've boldly had a try at clarification. It it doesn't work please fix it. Eddaido (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There are 92, yes 92 free images of Tigers in Wikimedia and someone says they are in short supply. Now someone says a series 1 was introduced in 1953. Eddaido (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Of those 92 images, the vast majority are images that depict modified Tigers. The few that remain that feature "stock" examples all (to this viewer) leave something to be desired. i.e., overly-busy backgrounds, shot from less than optimal angles. Pragmath (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not look around for some that appeal to you? There will have been many odd reasons for the collection being the kind it is and they certainly won't have been selected for suitability to WP. Anyway I have added some more shots of an unmodified car if anyone wants to use them. They are here Eddaido (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The first Alpine was named in 1953. A later Alpine, a very different car, was introduced in 1959. The Tiger derives from the second of these, it has nothing to do with the first.

We've been over this ground before (see Talk archives), but it degenerated into someone calling the owners club "fucking idiots" and driving them away. And the Tiger still wasn't based on the 1953 Alpine. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed now. Thanks! --Boson (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sunbeam Tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126011634/http://www.stoa-tigerclub.com/ to http://www.stoa-tigerclub.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)