Jump to content

Talk:Sunbeam Tiger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Comment

The 1960s version of the Sunbeam Tiger appeared in the opening credits of the US TV comedy series "Get Smart" as the car in which series lead character Maxwell Smart arrived at the headquarters of CONTROL, the spy agency he worked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.206.238 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rebuild

Random links not already in the article that might offer more links:

What's the provenance of that logo? I've never seen such a modern logo around a Tiger. Nor were Rootes keen on hyping the "Powered by Ford" aspect. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Good question, I've seen many varieties of this used by the different owners club, but I need to research it further. Looking briefly shows little, even if this image (or very similar) is found everywhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER
  • And good catch. I've reverted and deleted. This logo is used by a large number of clubs, but I checked very piece of advertising that I could find from the era, and every photo I could find, and it does appear that this is a modern logo and not an original logo, thus not appropriate here, either free or fair use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I may have spoke too soon. I can now trace that logo back to Aug. of 1965, Auto Topics magazine, title: "SunBeam Tiger", same logo (but in black in white in the book I have) with the subtext "Here's the American built V8 that makes this Tiger purr". The source for the logo I uploaded is here, so technically, it would be a valid Fair Use application and I can restore for it to be used in this article, but I will leave the decision to use it or not to consensus. But yes, it is period correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There may be something to that. I've looked through the entire book, and only see it in one article written by an American. At least one UK owners club uses it as a logo throughout [1], as do all the US clubs. Aussies and South Africans don't use it, however. I've not found anything else that would qualify as a logo. I'm fine either way, although now that I've seen it, I think that if we use it, it should be lower in the article and not in the lede. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Rebuilding the Tiger

I may just copy this page over with attribution later. For now, I've added the huge table, feel free to trim. I assume what I would do for the Tiger II section is create a table that only had differences, which would likely be only in the motor as it used the longer stroke 289, but will wait until you've had a chance to review. I can likely dig up other specs if you find something missing. Some are a bit confusing, due to the terminology used at that time. You will know which. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources to check out

Possible sources, some are good, others are marginal, WP:RS wise.

Moar linx:

Questions to be answered

  • When was the Tiger II released, and how did the coincide with Chrysler buying them out? Conflicting info on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

UK vs US English

I will leave that to the prior history and the judgement of others. Much of the copy I'm adding is being added using the exact phrases of the sources, which are primarily UK in nature. No offense is taken if someone converts them, I'm still at the "adding" stage, not the "making it pretty" stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

I don't expect all or any to be used as quotes, but they may provide sourced facts to include within them.

From Clarke|2005|p=112

"This 1960s sports car had svelt looks, but they were the same looks as those of the Sunbeam Alpine from which the Tiger was deivered. Only discreet badging and a set of twin exhausts provided a clue to what lay under the bonnet - a muscular Ford V8 engine, the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing."

From Clark|2005|p=108

"Assembled by Jensen of West Bromwish, some of the techniques to make the engine fit would make your eyes water. Standard practice was to bash the primered and painted bulkhead with a sledgehammer until there was enough clearance to slide the engine into place."

From Clark|2005|pages=104-105

"Only three racing Tigers were built, for the '64 Le Mans race, at a cost of $45,000 each. The cars were prototypes and barely resemble the road going Alpine versions."

    • These used stock 289 CID engines with 4 barrel carbs, Borg Warner close ratio T10 gearbox, redline at 5200, and could do 140 mph. Used a 40 gallon gas tank (a 44 gallon drum in the back seat), got 8 mpg. 11 inch Girling discs on all four corners.

From Clark|2005|p=48

The car was "designed especially for the American market" and was "inspired by Ian Garrad in the States."

From Clark|2005|p=69 (referring to the Tiger I)

"The gearbox is a four-speed unit with synchromesh on all forward gears, and the ratios, which give maximum speeds in the gears of around 50, 70 and 90 m.p.h. are almost ideally spaced."

Clarke|p77, seems it wasn't called the Tiger everywhere, and this also refs. it being sold in South Africa. This is a quote in the book, a reprint of Car South Africa in November 1965

"The 4.2-litre Sunbeam Alpine 260 (known in some countries as the Sunbean Tiger) which is fitted with V8 engine is to be released for sale in South Africa. The first models were expected to become available last month."

"Fitted with detachable hardtop as standard."

"Price of Sunbeam Alpine 260, throughout South Africa, R3,350.00" (sic)

Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Images

I cropped and uploaded this. It is left hand drive, but it the best dash shot we can find. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I will go shopping at flickr in a bit and add links below before uploading anything, but on Commons, theses are the images that I think are worth considering. I don't expect to use all, and I am hoping I can find a better engine image on flickr.

  • Engine
    Engine
  • Interior, right hand drive
    Interior, right hand drive
  • Left hand drive, slightly better quality
    Left hand drive, slightly better quality
  • Emblem
    Emblem
  • From Flickr, a few gems:
  • VIN badge[11]
  • Arguably better left hand drive dash shot [12]
  • Arguably better emblem [13]
  • Different emblems, fair. [14]
  • Engine badge, not likely usable but I thought you would like it. [15]
  • Zoomed out image of above, showing engine. Good quality, bad cropping. [16]
  • All of them that are properly licenced for us to transfer: [17]

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK hooks

Now that we have merged a great deal of new and sourced content and it seems we have met the standard for DYK, what possible hooks would we use? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(I know that you just love pop culture references, Malleus ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that seems fine to me, apart from the fact that it's not mentioned in this article. Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, we've got the required three-times expansion now. I remain unconvinced that the car seen in Get Smart was actually a Tiger as opposed to a rebadged Alpine, so my suggestion for a hook is "... that Carroll Shelby received a royalty on every Sunbeam Tiger produced?" Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. I just couldn't resist suggesting the one. :D And you are welcome to move the badge image, btw, I just thought it flowed better up high, reducing the white space a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The badge image looks fine where it is to me. I'll leave it to you to do the honours at DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Will get to it within a day. I like what we have created here. You deserve the lion's share of the credit (or Tiger's share, if you will), but I enjoy playing a supporting role. We still have a way to go, but I think we have a solid foundation for a GA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
We may have spoke too soon. The criteria for DYK is fivefold, not threefold. I fear it doesn't qualify. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
What? When did they up that? Three-fold was bad enough, but five-fold is ridiculous for anything other than a short stub. DYK really has lost its way. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That kind of caught me off-guard as well. Seems a bit excessive to require 5x the prose. As you say, it removes the DYK incentive for all but single sentence stubs. Perhaps they have more submissions than they wanted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't bothered about DYK anyway, so it's next stop GAN for us after we've done a bit more work. My gut feeling is that this article will barely reach a five-times expansion even when we've finished with it, but it'll be interesting to see what we come up with. It's starting to shape up very nicely in any event, which is of course the real point. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lord Rootes

This entire book appears to be a jackpot of sources. [19] It looks like Google has it mislabeled, it should be "Tiger - An Excpetional Motorcar" which I found at Amazon[20]. P13 talking about selling the idea to Lord Rootes, and how the Lord's son snuck it around his dad, etc. Sadly, my review stops at pages 14-35 before continuing on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to look closely at the production numbers again, there may be some discrepancy in the infoboxes verses the prose, just as every source seems to have slightly different numbers.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Level of detail

Some of that wasn't needed, but I tend to think the 44 gallon barrel sitting in the back seat explains why it was a fastback and provides context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to put it back in feel free. Eric Corbett 18:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is or was?

It's a lovely article, well done. Are we in the present or the past tense? --John (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As the car still exists I suppose the present tense. I'll have a look through and fix all the mistakes that Dennis has made.</joke> Eric Corbett 22:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I would act offended, but odds are you are right. I do have a habit of just dumping a bunch of facts and leaning on you to convert it to English. You've made me lazy that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That's right, blame me. I've had a quick look through though and I actually can't see what John apparently sees. But regardless of GA/FA I think this is an appropriate moment to say how much I've enjoyed working with you on the Tiger article, and win or lose I'm rather proud of what we've done. Eric Corbett 23:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Same here, it has been great to see you this enthused about an article. I think because it is so personal to you, more than just words and information, but a time capsule in your own life. I had never heard of the car before we started, but now I want one. I would need a second job as I'm not the only one. I'm quite comfortable in the supporting role as well. I find it liberating to be able to throw everything I can find against the wall, knowing someone else will filter and sort much of it. It suits me and works well as a learning method. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I get enthused about lots of articles, and I'm still rather disappointed with myself that I haven't yet taken workhouse to the next level. But right now I'm focused on the Sunbeam Tiger. Eric Corbett 00:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that I was still at school when the Tiger was on the market, no way I could have afforded one then, but a friend who'd left school early to set up in business as a second-car dealer had an Alpine, which is an article I may look at next. Eric Corbett 00:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry, but I want to work Tri-Five up to at least GA, preferably this year. I wasn't even born then, but those cars hold a special place in history and I think I owe it to history to give them a proper story. That should also help out the other articles that are linked off of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I'm more than happy to help the article get to GA if any work is required. I've known about the Tiger (and Alpine) for years now, very much an AC Cobra-style car, in that it is a regular British sports car with a big V8 shoved in the front (although that is pretty much where the relations end, bar the engines being Ford-built). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think all the heavy lifting is done on the Tiger, except for minor things, and researching just a bit more on Lord Rootes. On my talk page, you said you were interested in the Tri-Five. That will be a tricky one to write properly, covering the uniqueness of the chassis which separate it from other years (thus why it stands out), market impact as well as the cultural significance. There is plenty of raw material, but wrangling it into a coherent and elegant article that doesn't meander will take some work. I can use all the help I can get. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 10:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Collaboration is key with most articles really. I think with the Tiger we're into the final preparation stage now, so as you say Dennis, all the heavy lifting has been done. Eric Corbett 13:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleared image background

Resolved
Juggling layers. Photo by db

I made a small change to the image file File:Sunbeam_Tiger_V8_engine_powered_by_Ford.jpg on Commons: I removed what I felt was a distracting background. If you think it's an improvement, I can try to do it for other images. If the dark gray background fill isn't to your linking, that can be replaced at will. Of course, if you liked the sawn-off legs walking by, the image can be reverted back to the previous. Zad68 14:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It looks patently ridiculous now. The old version was imperfect, but clearly better - it doesn't look like a lazy photoshoot/airbrushing thing, but is actually real. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry you didn't like my efforts, I am indeed new at trying to do this sort of thing. Zad68 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I think it was a valiant effort, and I just attempted a similar effort using a white background, including the areas by the front of the car, working on the original image. I do this as part of my job, and the final results still looked a bit odd. I could mask the background and blur or fade it back, but there the results were still less than impressive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Alright, I reverted it back. I'm watching a few videos on how to do this. I saw this sort of thing done for images used in several medical articles I've worked on, and it was definitely an improvement. I think the difference must be that the medical images were largely meant to be clinical, and as Luke pointed out this sort of image comes off as odd if it doesn't have a "real life" vibe. I think I need to learn how to use the "fill this area using that other area as a source" tool, a good skill to learn. Zad68 14:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That looks much better, Dennis. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I will trust your judgement. I've done this since Photoshop 3 for commercial work. Actually using version 6 on this computer because I'm a cheapskate. Sometimes the best you can do is finesse the photo a little, and just draw the eye away from the distraction. Zad had the right idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Zad, let me share this: I first masked and deleted the areas I wanted changing. Then added a pure white background layer behind everything. Then I added a layer of the original photo, then a layer of the masked and cut photo on top of everything: it won't be changed at all. Then I manipulated the original layer (in the middle) by blurring and changing the opacity. This guarantees no "line" where I've masked, as the aliased mask cuts will blend seemlessly into the manipulated background, and I can literally dial in the amount of blur and virtual fade. I say I spent time, but for me that means 10 minutes as I've done this for 20 years now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sharin' the skillz. I'm getting the hang of layers, "channels" still give me migraines. When I have a bit more time I'm going to try again, just for the exercise. I'm going to create the masks and then use the clone tool and see how it comes out, this is actually really a lot of fun! Zad68 14:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Outside of CMYK printing, I avoid channels. I have some images with 100 layers, I save them as "master files", such as for banners on ecommerce websites, so I can change the contents in a folder of layers, but the style stays the same. Using folders of layers for overlays and such has a lot of commercial uses. This allows me to store the old banners in their working state, so I can reuse them and just change prices or dates. Since it stores the original images, I'm not making copies of copies and losing quality with each generation. I may not be a wordsmith, but I can juggle layers ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Math

Resolved
 – 2+2=5, but only for very large values of 2.

We still have a problem with the math, which is certainly going to be pointed out at FA. The production numbers don't add up. The problem is conflicting sources. These must be gone through and we either need to provide a range of production, noting conflicting sources, or determine which source is more reliable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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)
I've just noticed actually that the figures Robson gives for the individual production years doesn't match the figure in the summary table he gives for the Tiger I, in which it says that there were 6495 assembled. But as Rootes apparently always worked in round numbers of units probably 6450 is the figure we should go for. What figure does Clark come up with for Tiger I production? I don't think there's much doubt about the number of Tiger IIs produced though. Eric Corbett 13:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Of the 4 articles printed post production Clarke, two say "just over 7000" total (p=108, p=120), and p. 125 says "about 6500" of the "MkI" and "just 536" of the "MkII". One says nothing on numbers. Two more are from 1969 an no help. The rest of the articles are 1967 and older and likely of no help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's difficult to make sense of these different numbers. Our current figure of 633 Series II Tigers gives a total production run of 7083, which is consistent with "just over 7000", and 6450 is close enough "about 6500" for me. As I've said below, my suspicion is that the lower estimates for Series II production may stem from a confusion over the way Rootes numbered their chassis, and what the number of the earliest Series II car was. Getting dangerously to original research territory there though unless I can find a reliable source saying more or less the same thing. May need to explain all this in a note. Bugger, just when I though we'd cracked it! Eric Corbett 15:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
What about the "Series 1½" Tigers, could they be skewing the numbers somehow, as some call them Series I, and some call them Series II? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, as that was never a term that Rootes used, and the really significant discrepancy is with the Series II cars. So I think we need to come up with some kind of plausible explanation as to why there's a discrepancy of almost 100 between the highest and lowest estimates for Series II production, which is 20 per cent after all, quite a difference. The more I think about it the more convinced I become that it's caused by a confusion over chassis numbering, so I need to find the source again that discussed it. I didn't think it was important at the time, so I didn't keep it/bookmark it. :-( Eric Corbett 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I've done that and said "never again" so many times I've lost count. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I've found what I was looking for and I'm just writing something up now. It is indeed to do with chassis numbers, as I suspected. The chassis number of the last Tiger II is known, but for some time it was believed that the chassis number of the earliest was 100 greater than it's now known to be. Production numbers are simply calculated by subtracting the lowest chassis number from the highest, giving a figure of 633. Voilá! Just need to say that without making it look in any way like original research, even though strictly it might be construed that way I suppose. Eric Corbett 17:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
If it is clearly just a matter of simple math, then math is never original research. Like you said, it is all in how the information is presented. It might (or not) be worth mentioning that there is confusion over the number, but based on that number, blah blah blah, as long as that doesn't become OR. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 17:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm impressed Eric, you have done what every author has failed to do for whatever reasons, which is provide a reliable number for production using available material and simple math. That alone makes this article more reliable than all the articles and books we have thus far read. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 18:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't go quite that far Dennis, but at least we've now got a solid base for our figure of 633. It appears to me that some authors just uncritically parrot what they've read and others can't do a bit of simple arithmetic. And people say that Wikipedia is unreliable. Eric Corbett 19:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
That was my point. We could have just picked one source and declared it "reliable" for the sake of passing FA, yet never really knew how many were built. Because of you, know we know with a degree of authority, and Wikipedia gains credibility. It is a small thing, but small things matter. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Under "version..." I see The Series II Tiger was only officially available in the US, where it was called the "Tiger II" but above you say that ~ 27 were sold outside the US. Is there any way we can make this more clear? Do we know where the others were sold, and why those are "unofficial"? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    Not sure I understand the question; all but 27 were sold in the US, and all of those 27 were sold in Britain. Is that what you were asking? By officially I mean that the Tiger II never appeared for sale in British showrooms. Eric Corbett 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you've cleared that up. The Tiger was available in South Africa as well, and I want to say Australia (at least there are Tiger clubs there), so saying where those went added some clarity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I'm done wikifying and decommafying it. Feel free to revert if you think I've gone overboard. The numbers and the point above about official/unofficial are the only problems I see in this page. I feel like I'm GA reviewing my own research. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Found this: [22] - 6 Mk2s were all-white cars for the British police force, with RHD, 4 were regular RHD production cars, and 6 were LHD cars bound for the States, which were converted to RHD. That's 16 of them, (10 of which were official UK cars), not sure about the other 11. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a chassis number. It explicitly states "But on March 20th, midway through the assembly of the 534 MKII’s..." Of course, it's potentially plausible that it is a typo, or equally plausible that Rootes started at 100 (it wouldn't be unheard of for such a circumstance to arise). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    It does, but there might be an important clue there as to what's at the heart of this discrepancy, as I remember reading fairly recently that there's some disagreement about what the chassis number was of the very first Series II, and IIRC the Rootes numbering system changed at some point during the production run. Obviously needs a bit more investigation. Eric Corbett 15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Details

Resolved

This shouldn't affect or hold up GA/FA, but I'm curious as to the type of 2 speed automatic used in the first prototype. I see someone has one with a Powerglide [24] and wonder if that is what was used in the first prototype. I had thought that Ford and Chrysler had stopped building 2 speed automatics well before this, but Chevrolet continued the Powerglide until 1969 I believe. The Powerglide is rather thin and short as well. I haven't found any sources, but that would be an "interesting" fact if you have run across it previously. It is very likely that it was a Powerglide, based on the date, even if Ford didn't want to admit it. As we found in the article you just reviewed, Ford has used the Powerglide in Lincoln autos for a couple of years, so it wouldn't be a first. Just curious, nothing more. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • [25] makes no mention of the slushbox other than that it's a 2-speeder, nor did this source [26], which I referenced in here earlier. Haven't seen anything else yet on it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've looked at a great number of books as well, no mention. Ford used the Powerglide on their early Lincolns, before they developed their own automatic (at first a 2, then quickly a 3 speed) because the Powerglide could handle tremendous amounts of torque, the same reason drag racers use it today. They mention the BorgWarner and the Ford, but I have never seen mention of which 2 speed automatic they used, an older Ford design (not likely due to torque) or the Powerglide. Again, nothing to slow us down, but I'm forever curious. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Now that I've found a rebuild kit for a 1959-1964 Fordomatic two-speed transmission, I'm guessing they used the Ford, which might be why they didn't mention it. Since it was a prototype, it would make sense to use the Ford transmission. I had thought they had quit producing them by 1963, the year the prototype was likely built, but it appears not. In the words of the immortal Emily Litella: "Never mind". Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      Robson (2012) simply says that Miles used a "Ford 260CID engine which came equipped with automatic transmission", which does suggest it was a Ford unit. Carroll (2001) p. 16 definitely says that the Miles prototype used a two-speed transmission though, but no mention of type. Eric Corbett 19:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Tiger II image

1967 Tiger II - note no trim down the side.
Trim stripe = Tiger I like this one. There are sources to this effect, in particular Clarke p. 126

Good job Eric (you too Dennis) – nice improvements to the article. One thing though: Are we sure that the Tiger II image is really a Tiger II? It may well be – I'm just not seeing how that was determined. Perhaps one of these (or some other image) could be substituted if necessary: Blue w/Hardtop, Closeup showing Tiger II grille, or Tiger II. Mojoworker (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I had determined it was a Tiger II by the trim, or lack of, actually. Note the chrome stripe down the side of the Tiger Is. There are other differences, but this is the most obvious reason that this must be a II in this photo. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't be against using the blue one. The other I'm less inclined to use. I still kind of like the red better though. Note in the blue one, no trim down the side, like this red one. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Ahh, I see. I never noticed that before. I always looked at the grille to tell the difference – back when I was shopping for a British classic. I ended up getting a Big Healey instead. Although a friend of mine does have a Tiger, but it's not a series II... Mojoworker (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I could easily fix the glare on the bumper by removing it, but just not in love with that photo. The resolution is low, the contrast is low, and the cropping is poor. And by the trim, I just mean you can see that in almost any full shot angle, even in the rear shot photo at the bottom. I have seen some shots of older Tigers with the trim piece removed, [27] but they had other modifications as well, making it obvious they weren't stock. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 08:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Image captions

Couldn't some of the image captions be a bit more expressive/informative? I like the advice at WP:CAPTION that the captions should draw the reader into the article. Many of the current captions are quite literal and so a bit dull. Some suggestions:

  • The one currently captioned "Badging" might be able to pick up on the article content regarding the name with something like "The Tiger was originally the Thunderbolt, but the name was changed shortly before its public unveiling"; or "Although the car was given the name Tiger, a road tester suggested a more comparable animal would be the pussy cat" picking up on the Autocar quote
  • "Under the bonnet" might be "Installing such a large V8 engine in a relatively small vehicle required some modifications"
  • "1967 Tiger II" might be "The 1967 Tiger II was officially available only in the US"

If these sorts of changes are made, it would also be good to move the images closer to the relevant article content. Zad68 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should the image captions repeat what's already in the text? Eric Corbett 13:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
To draw the reader in to the article prose, as it suggests at WP:CAPTION. Many people might glance through the article and look at the images without necessarily being convinced to read the text. An image caption like "Under the bonnet" doesn't draw the reader in - my reaction to that caption was, "Yes it is." A caption like "Installing such a large V8 engine in a relatively small vehicle required some modifications" would raise questions in my mind - Why would they be trying to install such a large engine in a small vehicle? What modifications were required? - so that would draw me in to read the article content to answer the questions the caption raises. Zad68 13:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The why is to get more power, to satisfy the American market. But I've expanded the image captions. Eric Corbett 17:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The new captions are definitely an improvement - I now have an understanding of why each image is there and what I'm supposed to be looking at. Thanks for considering the suggestion. Zad68 01:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for taking the time to read the article. Eric Corbett 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Images

Shouldn't the license/number plates be blurred, for privacy? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to blur them go ahead. Eric Corbett 14:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That really isn't something I think we need to worry about, personally. I can't see how any regular person is going to track down the owner of the car based on the plate number, which isn't public info, nor why they would want to do so. They aren't blurred on Flickr, so there doesn't seem to be a point. This isn't like an innocent bystander's face in a crime photo, or a phone number. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @Luke: Ha!
@Dennis: Google Street View privacy concerns, for instance. At FPC it's not uncommon to get requests to blur license plates for possible future FPs; I doubt most owners of these cars want their valid license plates out there for millions of people to see. I doubt tracking someone down with just a license plate number is so difficult that not one person would do it — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential ambiguity

Should the word "rallies" in the lead be linked to Rallying? My point is that while rallying is a motorsport, certainly in Britain the word is now also used in the context of meetings where vehicles are shown but not raced competitively. A random Googled example would be this event or this one. More often than not, in my experience, such meetings are either entirely static displays or involve little more than a procession of vehicles that pootle in an orderly fashion round a few local streets or even a demarcated circle in a field. Oddly, the latter of my two examples involved a rather more extensive outing but is nonetheless not competitive (except, perhaps, for prizes being awarded for such things as oldest vehicle, best turned-out vehicle etc). - 2.221.215.167 (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Linking it is what gives it the context to understand what kind of "rally" you are referring to. Not linking would make it ambiguous. This is exactly why we link these terms. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Moar

On display at the http://www.lemaymuseum.org/ (America's Car Museum) , PDF at [28]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is still the issue of the logo, which I uploaded, then deleted (but can restore), but then found it is used in one American source. The original image is here and wondering if you think it needs putting back in the article as an "official" logo for american use. I talked about this on the other talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I need to do some investigation on that logo; it just doesn't feel like a contemporary 1960s offering to me. Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I have it sourced to an American article from 1965, however, page 72 of Clarke, from "Auto Topics" magazine. I'm neutral on including, it is just the only logo I've seen. The owners clubs use it frequently, although it does seem to be rather rare outside of this one article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
My gut feeling is that this is the legitimate logo. Looks much more contemporary. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see it being used in any of the forty something article's I've read on the car, most of which date in the 60s. I only see it on the car itself, and I've checked every page again. I've looked at ads and literature from the day [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] and don't see any singular logo for the Tiger. We may just be better off to assume there was no one "master" logo, and not use any. Oh, and this image may have some useful info for you at the bottom. [36] Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and using the emblem/badge instead of a logo seems perfectly logical considering the efforts expended to try to find an "official logo". Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The logo you're discussing is originally from the LAT brochure: http://www.tigersunited.com/resources/parts_service/LAT-brochure.pdf . You could buy the logo as the LAT-16 decal. The italic Tiger script pictured on the Mk1A was used on all production Tigers and it's similar to the script used by Rootes for other cars such as the Alpine and the Super Snipe. TheoSmit (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Misc

30 minutes of washing and waxing with Photoshop. Not perfect, but maybe close enough?
I think we could and should use that Dennis. I'll write a sentence or two around it later. Eric Corbett 20:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Misc. factoids and quotes that may nor may not be worthy of inclusion.

Clarke p. 128 "Cynics say you can tell a fake Tiger from a Jensen-built original because the quality of the welding will be better on the fake"
Clarke p. 128 "Although Chrysler's own styling studio came up with a new radical interpretations of a brand-new Tiger, nothing got beyond the drawing board, and the next time the Tiger reappeared it was adorning the rear end of souped-up Avengers."
Clarke p. 128 "Serious Tiger junkies should search out the excellent Book of the Norman by American Tiger guru Norman Miller . ... It tells, for example, how Shelby cannily repackaged some of his existing tuning gear by changing the labels to read Tiger instead of Cobra."
Clarke p. 102 when discussion the Tiger II, "Just recently, some time after we had driven the car, we heard an authoritative rumor that the Tiger II might not be imported into the United States in 1968 because of the difficulty of rigging it to meet the new safety regulations."
Clarke p. 99 "The Tiger II doesn't take kindly to being flung around. It's a car with dignity and asks to be driven that way. That doesn't mean slowly, necessarily, but that there's sufficient power on tap to embarrass the incautious."

Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Error? - The image with the caption "Distinctive chrome trim with the Sunbeam V8 badge below, indicating this is a Series II Tiger" when the sources show that the Tiger II didn't have the stainless side trim. Could this be a Ia perhaps? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    Perhaps, or even a late Series I after Chrysler started to get sniffy about the "Powered by Ford 260" badge. Eric Corbett 13:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    I know that several were built using the old Series IV panels (1A) but not sure they should be called Tiger II or not. 1A was never an official designation, as you know. So the lower badge is a differentiating factor for IIs? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    As with a few other things with this article it's hard to be definitive. All I can say with a degree of confidence is that the Series II had the "Sunbeam V8" badging, but it's quite possible that shield had been used on late Series Is as well. In other words, all IIs have the Sunbeam badge, but I can't be certain that no Is did towards the end of their production run. I know that Chrysler had asked Rootes to tone down the Ford connection before taking overall control of the company, so it's quite possible. Eric Corbett 13:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Clarke p. 107 - Tiger had 5 inches of ground clearance, considered good by the current standard for sports cars.
Clarke p. 125 "There were a few minor improvements to the running gear of the MkII - oil cooler for the engine, alternator instead of dynamo, bigger clutch, relocated Panhard rod for the rear axles, wider ratio gearbox - but most of the changes were cosmetic. ... The most striking visual change, however and the most controversial, was the deletion of the MkI's thin stainless side strips if favour of wide vinyl 'go faster' stripes above the sills. They were suitably groovy in the Sixties but are too much for many of today's owners who prefer to leave them off following a respray." which may clear up the stripes issue. Still digging.
  • Looking here [37], the photos seem to confirm the idea that the same wheels were used as OEM rims for all years. I have inspected over a dozen different sources talking about the differences between the Tiger I and II, none make a single mention of the wheels. The loud omission and photo evidence, to me, indicates that there wasn't a change over the production life, or at least there is no reason to think there was. Undoubtedly, dealers offered their own options that likely varied from state to state and from the UK to the US, but that wouldn't be a factory option and would be WP:OR to introduce anything of that sort, thus shouldn't be mentioned at all. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking for photos of the Tiger II showing the dual sill stripes doesn't bring up much in the way of free photos this isn't very good, nor is this. No others were found. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    Nobody much seemed to like the dual sill stripes, so I don't think they lasted for long. My concern is about the rocker stripes. But I think the first image would be quite good if we could remove the glare from the reflection off the front bumper. Eric Corbett 18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    The halo around that glare makes it very difficult, and part of the grill is missing in the glare and will have to be constructed from new bits. I will fire up Photoshop and see if I still have some MoJo left in me. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    I spent a half hour on the image. It isn't perfect, but I think it is arguably better than the original. Had to install a new grill, replant some grass, and use about 12 layers. There is still a little bit of "glare" but that looks more or less natural. Give me enough time and I can run all those people off our lawn, but I will leave that to your discression. ;-) Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    This was a cool bit of work, I like it. This looks harder than what I was trying to do - I was trying to erase something, you were more or less trying to un-erase something. I had downloaded Gimp's "resynthesizer" plugin and it really did some interesting magic but it didn't quite end up being useable. After my 45th near-fist-through-screen experience (mostly due to copying and pasting lasso'd sections into new layers and not having them end up like I wanted) I gave up, so a hat tip to you for knowing your stuff here. Zad68 01:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    Looks good Dennis – nice Photoshop Mojoworkin'. Mojoworker (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. I can see several hard lines and artifacts blinding me, but I will fix them in time (I kept the master files) but it is adequate for the time being. I'm rather particular about photo work, but I'm practical enough to know that is the best I can do in the little time I had available. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding wheels, this] clearly indicates that any wheel options were indeed aftermarket LAT options provided by Shelby in the USA, and not Rootes options. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    That's the wheel covers sorted then. Eric Corbett 13:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The wilwood] article reference to Shelby selling LAT parts is misleading. LAT parts available over the counter or were installed at Rootes dealers. The LAT parts sourcing (which included re-branded manifolds, valve covers, and oil pans from the same tooling used for equivalent "Shelby" parts) was handled by Richard Wheatley and Ian Garrad. This is covered on page 168-169 of "Tiger, The making of a Sports Car" by Mike Taylor (2nd ed). As noted here http://tigersunited.com/resources/parts_service/pp-garrad.asp and http://tigersunited.com/resources/parts_service/pp-wheatley.asp, Rootes dealers were encouraged to add LAT options to their Tiger inventory to boost margin. TheoSmit (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sunbeam_Tiger/Archive_1&oldid=1089896515"