Originally Posted by HughH
Milou
Thank you for your kind words. You post from the other day got me thinking about how we build on the information we find in threads like these and make it more accessable.
That site you listed is a great one. But like all others its information has to be critically assessed.
For example on that site, and all others I have seen with chassis numbers, it states that the 48 Sonauto car from Le Mans is #911 360 1033. That is the number of a Sonauto customer RSR but, I think we have proven, NOT the number of the 48 car.
All the pictorial evidence, factory information obtained by you, Singers records etc say that the 48 car was a "factory prepared car and was R2 911 360 0020. In addition I remember you got advice from the factory that the car was "loaned" to Sonauto for the race where the 1033 car was sold to them.
This is a trap with these sites, and the internet generally, (although it is not confined to the internet). I have been guilty of falling into it a number of times on this thread.
For example with the Le Mans test cars the records on which car was which is back to front in all sites I have seen. Even skeptical use of that information (without period documentary evidence -ie photos - to check against) led this thread off on a wrong direction on the identity of R2 and what may have happened to it over time for months. Eventually it was corrected and accepted that the published records of the chassis numbers for each car need to be reversed.
The big question now is what to do with this new information.
While we can not be 100% sure that the published information is incorrect, but I am as sure as I can be. I thought of writing to one of the sites with this information - but why would they believe it, would they even care, and what difference would it make. It is extremely hard to correct wrong information in this "information age".
One of the great things about this site, and even a long and convoluted thread like this, is that the facts can be debated, the logic chain and assumptions questioned and critically assessed and hopefully (if you can get to the end) an agreed "truth" can be documented. However as you stated the other day it is extremely hard to work your way thru it.
This has reminded me of the other debate going on in the board - having a separate area for documenting facts and details about cars - ie when the collective wisdom of the membership reach a conclusion about something - say the conclusions from this thread on which cars were which - it is then summarized and documented to provide a "source of truth" to counter all the other "facts" out there.
It would be a crime to edit (to make it more accessible) a thread such as this, with all its wrong assumptions and dead ends etc, as I think that documenting the process of how we reached the conclusions is as important as documenting the conclusions. Maybe you would put two threads in one area linked together - one on the conclusions and one, for the brave to read, on how they were reached.
This board, despite all of its little foibles and occasional "blow ups", IS becoming a global authority on these cars. It is fantastic that so many knowledgeable people share their knowledge here and it would be great to find way to build on the information that we learn in threads like these.