David Piper restores the Talacrest P4

Ditto the photos in 2689, taken from different heights.

 

Well I used to be a design draughtsman and while I understand where you are coming from in regards to angles it is plainly obvious that the shape is not right.
EDIT: I've removed the other photos as no point comparing to #0844 with it's replica body
Pete

 

330 Can Am 0844 redodied with a replica 412P body.

 

This is as close as I can do ... up to the viewers to form their own opinion.
Pete
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It's pretty clear they've done it wrong but they don't care - they got their money. That's what this was all about.

There was never any romance in this and I am disappointed in all who were involved in this destruction of real history, including the buyer.

>8^)
ER

 

Profound post, considering some of the posts in this long thread by some I was expecting a good finished article, though I do concede "good" is very subjective.

Now of course we wait for the inevitable magazine article on the car....

 

Old trick on F chat to make the poster appear knowing question the photograph and make a comment that the body lines are not quite right. I am sure PSK knows about cars and all but in general anyone can pull this card with a few different photographs.

LOL nobody thinks a GTO looks "correct" if they stare at it long enough.

 

The red car is taken from a much lower position and they are different colors, it does matter.

 

Let me be very clear I know bugger all about these cars. In fact I had little interest in them at all until Jim rebuilt #0846. But I do have a very good eye and the front of #0858 is not 100% right. It is not even close for a multi-million dollar car. The top of the mouth should be straightish and the bottom curved. Somehow it has ended up the other way.

What I am most interested in though, is how if they digitalised #0900 did this happen? I guess they did not translate the digitital image/file into an accurate body buck or something. With shapes like this 5mm out here and there makes an enormous difference to the end look.

And as this is what matters to the seller:

... it doesn't really matter but it is a pity because it was ugly before, but at least original. Now it is just ugly .

And I'm not trying to "pull" any card or make myself look like a hero to right or whatever, just trying to get those that are blind to see that the new body is not 100% right. As I said a few posts ago, it is a shame that the original body was removed but after the decision was taken the new body had to be made 100% dead on and perfect. Unfortunately it has missed the mark in my humble opinion.
Pete

 

What has happened with the nose is that they didn't cut planes that were close enough together to get it right. In areas where you have a lot of complex shaping going on you need to take more cuts of the body and generate cutting planes in both directions. The number of sections that you cut is dependent on who is doing the panel shaping. If the person has a good eye and knows what it's supposed to look like you can get by with fewer sections. I believe that the person doing the panel shaping was highly skilled at shaping metal, but probably a bit less so when it comes to matching a shape from a photograph...

It is truly unfortunate that they messed this up since much of the other areas of the body are quite well done (with the obvious exception of the taller arches on the rear fenders).

Nothing that a bunch of money can't fix... If I bought the car I would not be satisfied with the front end.

 

If you really feel this way why not get in touch with John and David .You might learn something new and be better informed. tongascrew

 

What's the point? Obviously they are going to defend their investment. And get offended about it too, as some of JC's recent videos & posts prove.

Yet the pictures above definitely show a few inconsistencies.

 

Early on I left a politely worded comment about the importance of preservation of history within a post on the Talacrest FB wall regarding their 858 project. It was politely worded, although I admit it painted their project in a negative light, but most would not have taken issue with. Instead of any kind of response, the comment I left was deleted shortly after and I was subsequently banned from further participation on their FB wall. Maybe I wasn't the first to interrupt their marketing efforts with a less than favorable view to what they were doing, but this seemed a fairly harsh method of initial response.

Anyway, you can imagine my skepticism now about there being any benefit in taking your advice.

>8^)
ER

 

For what its worth I have had a couple of pleasant exchanges with John Collins.I guess it has something to do with how you approach people.As For David Piper he tends to keep pretty much to himself. Just for the record about the pictures of the front end the picture in post 2688 looks pretty good compared to the one in post 2689 which really does look off. When one goes back to the pictures from 1967 at Spa, Le Mans and Brands Hatch the front end look is much like the 2688 post picture. For 0900 the front end is quite different from what 0858 ever was and was I am sure a model for 0858.Fourty five year old period photos are difficult to use as reference and so the effort with 0858 may or may not be near perfect.I think when 0858 shows up at some 2014 events there will be a better opportunity to make a better comparison. No two of these cars were ever the same and there is nothing more than old photos to go by.tongascrew

 

Don't know if this helps or not because I'm not an expert on the subject, but were there any differences between 0846 and 0858 nose-wise? If so, well mute point, if not here's 0846 in it's original 1967 guise which may be of some assistance.


Copyright JAG
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

0846 has a P3 nose 0858 had a P4 nose when it was a P4.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Beautiful photo.

 

When did the P3 nose change into the one like on 0846 at Daytona 67 pictured above and in your pic, from the nose as in the 1966 Monza Test with its bigger gaping grille and wider headlight covers?

Also is the later type P3 nose the same as the 412 P nose?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Interesting that #0846's original P3 nose mouth has a thicker bottom lip a "little" like the current #0858 one.

Surely the front of #0846 changed when it was converted into a P3/P4?
Pete

 

When she became a P 3/4 afaik.

Looks to be.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What did the car in
question sell for ?

 

You said 0846 has a P3 nose but it's different to the one she had originally as a P3. When she became a P3/4 did she perhaps get the same nose as a 412 P?

I may be mistaken but I think that the P3's nose at some point in 1966 changed to the 412 P and P3/4 type nose, still with the 3 vents of the P3, but the covered headlights more like a P4?

 

Center vent is the P3 style. P4's have two vents on top lip. P 3/4 and 412 noses are evo P3.

 

I was mistaken. The P3 nose later in 1966 was the same as it was at inception. 0846's nose as P3/4 in 1967 looks different to how it did in 1966. Look at the pics of her from the Nurburgring 66.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yes remember P3 were different both visually and mechanically (FI vs. carbs, 603's vs 593's gearboxes and uprights, outboard brakes vs. inboard, floor mounted pedals vs hanging pedals, etc.) from 412P's. There are no P3's existent. P3 0844 became a 412P and then a 330 Can Am. (Now fitted with a replica 412P body) P3 0846 became the only P 3/4. P3 0848 became a 412P. 0850 and 0854 were built as 412P's