Things that are done/said wrong so often .. now thought correct

[911MRP]

Off the back of repeatedly correcting a misapprehension about RS original steering wheel and a light-hearted comment from Mark I thought I'd start a thread on this topic.

While there is a light-hearted aspect to this I also think with all the hype in our hobby there is genuinely loss of information as misconceptions creep in from oft made mistakes and presumptions. Sometimes I suspect in some cases noise is introduced to confuse

An opportunity to straighten out this pet peeves without picking at people's FS posts which is where a lot of this provenance and authenticity scabs get picked at on a case by case basis. A neutral place to get to the facts without emotion of a sale.

The only groundrule is that there should be in-period or very solid provenance EVIDENCE provided to any assertion of fact.Let's be data rational; enough emotion flying around off topic.

I'll start ...
Reposting an item that inspired idea to open this thread


The engine mounts in calendar 73 were black presumably satin not yellow cad /chromate as often done wrong.

Evidence above James Hunt's 73 RS pictures when nearly new clearly has them.

It'll be interesting to see if there is as much energy/interest in this anorakish thread Vs the ESR governance legal kerfuffle that to me is frankly of zero interest in my little old car hobby.

A chance to get those pet peeves of incorrect oft repeated cr@p off your chest and correct the travesties of incorrect "interventions" to longhood cars often made by amateurs and professionals alike -- losing the authenticity plot on stuff only some ESR folks would know or care about?

Some folks here don't care about authenticity. But no reason to lose the truth even of owner current custodian chooses to steamroller how it was done away in a resto or hot rod or replica or Magnus pastiche wannabe ...whatever lights one's fire.. Each to their own as they say.

This thread is dedicated to the sad marque historians and authenticity anaoraks Folks who generously share deep knowledge freely -- feel free ignore thread if that is not your bag. Like Patek Philipe's message... we are custodians for future generations -- many cars will outlive us and true references to authenticity are being lost forever. Yes cars are being saved which is great are authenticity touched being lost or confused for those who care. ESR is the place to document the fact forum better than anywhere I know of to do that. There are huge amounts of clarification corrections spread to four corners of site but still in some cases the misconceptions don't die.

So...Things that are done/said wrong so often .. now thought correct? I've got a few others but will leave it for now to see if this thread generates interest.

Steve

[Brad Davis]

Thanks Steve.

Often the washers are installed the wrong way. The concave side should be facing out.

Best regards,

Brad

[911MRP]

Good catch Brad. I had seen mistake sometimes on cars arriving when helping out at a friend's shop and meant to write it but forgot that point
Cheers

Ok adding another.. the part 914.347. 806.10 is the correct part number for the model 911744 Carrera RS 380mm steering wheel. Evidence factory paper spare part book printed contemporary with car production



Also evidence from owners here based on a number of known original Carrera RS still with wheel 806.10 along with importantly that unique to the first RS very rare plastic horn push still fitted!

Unless hard evidence contemporary with RS from factory source is provided to support the theory 805.10 being the correct original factory fit to Carrera RS ...despite similarities and that one digit!

Close maybe ok with hand grenades but not this part number so let's kill this confusing and frankly irritatingly potentially misleading but persistent spin often put on rs 380mm orphan wheels.

As a footnote it has been established that 806.10 2/70 and 3/ 70 date stamp not only existed contrary to mistaken supposition that were only in 73 . Moreover they were fitted to earliest RS 100 and 200 range. This is supported by photo of 806.10 3/80 posted by Dirk elsewhere on forum and the fact such 70 dated wheels are known to be fitted to well known cars. The use of 73 stamped 806.10 was by Jan 73 mid 400 series; if not earlier in Jan

Konradshiem reports the unique to RS plastic horn push was discontinued on 6 Feb 73. Being fragile unbroken ones are rare.

[Nicklasliljegren]

Okay I'll give it a try.

Stickers can be very cool and is therefore easy to put on to many.

69- 70 911 T, E & S had no stickers on the ignition coil or on the coil bracket. The bracket sticker appeared after 73.

Here are a link to photos of the unrestored and never modified 1970 S with only 700 miles.
No stickers on the coil or the coil bracket. https://www.flickr.com/photos/807244...7630169538658/

Here are a link to photos of the unrestored 731-mile 1973 911T "The Raymond Allen 911T". One sticker (vorsicht) on the coil. No sticker on the bracket.

http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...ght=kent+moore

Best Nick

[patrick911]

Hi Steve, interesting topic this, but i struggle a bit with the definition of 'correct', especially when it comes to cars that were used for racing or rallies.
We all know that changes were often made between practice and race or during the season, and we also know (like in the case with the first 500 Carrera RS cars) that the cut-off for certain parts was not strictly after number 500, as they kept on using parts until they ran out. The factory mayt even have put parts from earlier model years back on next year cars if it so suited them. For example, when it comes to RSs, everyone always claims they had 300pkh speedo's and 10K rev counters, but Konradheim's book for example states that the 300kph speedo was introduced sometime during the 1973 model year.
so is your intention for this topic to only cover the 'standard' cars people could buy from the dealer, or do provable facts relating to specials/rally/race cars count too?

[911MRP]

I hadn't thought about it much so I don't have any real scope but idea was inspired by Mark's throw away comment that there are many things done not now to original spec but over time the modern way of doing it has become accepted as the original way.

Agree race cars maybe more difficult.

Off top of head another one is that the blue wheels and side stripes of grand Prix White Carrera RS are often matched hue but pictures from back in the day show they were subtly different blue hues. I've previously posted a picture from 73 of new car that despite photo colour artifacts still show this difference. By the evidence goal I'll link photo here if I can find it

Another is ride height which from review of period pictures show factory ride height stance were often higher new e.g. 73 cars than today's fashion -- even allowing for the tyre profile changes. This one is so obvious in many pictures hardly need exemplar photo evidence.

Another is the edge of the rear slam corner curves -- old hat and called out many times so often not new news now but would have fitted the the sort of thing when it was first noted.

Many folks assumed that tyres for the flat Fuchs that followed deep were tubeless but literature proves there was a period of tubed and tubeless only came later. This is example of wrong presumption and maybe moot if nla tubed but nevertheless is one. Again not new but thing but something that might be noted if hadn't been discussed before.

Things maybe pet peeves on what always gets restored /done wrong or incorrect things oft quoted as a fact but are wrong -- obviously seeking things ot covered on forum before rather than rehashing things commented on

Maybe see if thread gets any traction and if so where it ends up -- or it'll wither. Sounds like Mark has a few observations and pet peeves up his sleeve?

No suggestion that things posted have to be redone the original way but at least the difference now to then is recorded so the original is not lost and later ways of doing it ( or incorrect oft repeated incorrect assumptions) presumed correct.




If you always notice something on cars that have had work and think gees why do they always do that incorrect or when you know it wasn't that way originally so why do people always say something different is correct ...then that might be a candidate


Cheers

[Bantam]

Excellent idea Steve.....save me a seat in the home for 'sad marque historians and authenticity anoraks'!

Joking apart I share your frustration at how a certain person/organisations view gains traction and becomes peddled as 'fact', what I find even more frustrating is the tone of some of the discussions and debates about what is correct, I really fail to understand why people can't undertake these in a more open and cordial manner. You are quite right to say that there needs to be solid provenance evidence but more than anything I would like to see people enter into it with the sole reason to arrive at what is factually correct......it doesn't matter in the end if we are proved to be mistaken, surely we are all big enough and ugly enough to cope with that......lets face it we are only talking about old cars.

On a housekeeping front (perhaps a question for the Registry administrators) before we get a variety of topics, how should these areas be presented to make them easily recoverable through a search......topic summary in the title box of the individual post within the thread or some other way?

[ejboyd5]

When discussing originality, the words "always" and "never" should not be used.

[911MRP]

When discussing originality, the words "always" and "never" should not be used.

True. Overstated I accept but nevertheless it doesn't invalidate the point that for a whole raft of reasons the plot is lost