Talk:Bentley Mark VI

Bentley Mark VI today

Hello, Sinntal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I know the section Bentley Mark VI today represents a great deal of work. Unfortunately Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, does not accept this kind of information so I have deleted it again. At the top of this page you will see this: This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. Would you please click on the blue high-lighted text and when you get to the Wikiproject choose the link to its talk page. At the foot of the page you will see where your additions have been raised for discussion. There is no discussion because it is an open and shut case. Like Stepho says — check with WP:ISNOT. You should join WikiProject automobiles, you are clearly very knowledgeable and your contributions will be very welcome if they fit within our guidelines.

Your other contributions. You must supply citations for all of them. You should ensure the citations you supply are well-sourced. Please do not add your photos of your car to the gallery again until we have discussed your reasons for doing so. There is a better representative of H J Mulliner's bodies in the gallery. I will leave your other amendments for the moment while you find the necessary citations. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Edaido: (1) Could you provide reason why you removed my referenced gallery pictures that contained chassis numbers and substituted a non-referenced one of a similar Rippon Brothers shooting brake / estate car? May I quote you: " Your other contributions. You must supply citations for all of them." Please do what you expect from others. There is a lot of unreferenced material in this article, by the way, written by you and others. "I leave this for now while you provide the references". Thank you for your efforts in making Wikipedia better. Apart from the fact that there are quite a few recent estate car / shooting break conversions around so such a picture should be referenced. So please provide reference and rationale for this change.

(2) Again, B24MD is described by Nutlands book as pretty much the quintessential Mk VI body style. As referenced by me. I am asking you again to provide a rationale for the removal of this picture. It is different from the other HJ Mulliner styles shown.

(3) If you read the Wikipedia entry on Carosserie Worblaufen (you renamed the link I provided and deleted the reference with additional information about the car, rationale?), you see that there are two Ramseier coachbuilding companies, Carosserie Ramseier in Bern and Biel (built mainly trailers and truck bodies) and Carosserie Worblaufen Fritz Ramseier and Cie (or Co), that built the displayed vehicle. The English translation "Ramseier Bros." you used is therefore ambiguous, and is not the name of the company that built the body (but can be found online in some advertisements). Or why do you use it and prefer it over the correct term that is used in the Wikipedia entry? Provide a reference and a rationale, please, or do not change it if it is a lateral move or leads to inferior quality of information. Thank you. Sinntal (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Edaido: you removed several referenced annotations for example about the more restrictive exhaust in LHD cars, About the top speed of the continental to put it in perspective to the Standard Steel and other cars, etc. Please provide a rationale and references for changing this referenced content.Sinntal (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sinnntal. Would you mind making a note of the conventional way to make talk pages easier to follow.

1. Sorry, information about the subject of photos will be on the image file. No need for a citation in the article. Quite a short time ago the inclusion of a big gallery like this one would have earned instant reduction to one or very few images by a senior editor with the comment "Wikipedia is not a photo album". (Wikimedia is though, see the link near the bottom of the left hand column)

Do you remember removing the heading? The display is for readers to understand (for many this seems almost impossible) the concept of a car body being made by a business totally independent from the business that made engine and chassis and other mechanicals. The display shows a wide range of coachbuilders. The display is too big. It already includes a good sample from H J Mulliner and there is no need for the poorer quality pictures you wish to introduce. True Rippon was omitted but I have replaced your choice with an image that blends with the others instead of employing the attention-getting contrasting blue and orange. Good idea to have an estate car though. There is a good deal of resistance to belief in the simple fact that Bentleys like Rolls-Royces were far too expensive to be bought new to carry hearse bodies — expect a hearse along soon. This is an encyclopaedia rather than the old cars blog some assume it to be.

2. We have absolutely no shortage of images of Mark VI Bentleys at all.

3. Ramseier Bros came with the image provided by an Italian (maybe Swiss?) editor. I think you will find the same business operated in different places under different names at different times, in fact was itself in doubt about its names (not always being under the ownership of a corporate body). You may like to find a reference for the information in that article which has attracted your attention.

Sinnntal, I don't think your closing remarks are correct, you might like to check. Eddaido (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Edaido: I left your Rippon Shooting Brake picture, even though the reference and chassis number I provided with the previous picture showed that this was an original Shooting Brake rather than a later conversion. Your picture does not come with this information, but I left it since it is probably really a Rippon body and you seem to be particular about it. In addition to hearse conversions there are actually current companies that transform R-types and Mk VI to Shooting Brakes just because people like the look....Sinntal (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes Sinnnntal there are people who do these hearse and shooting brake things, in my day old cars were converted to pick-ups and gas guzzlers like dead Rolls and Bentleys were "a dime a dozen". Truly. But as pointed out to you a number of times this is an encyclopaedia and not an old car blog. Eddaido (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Boot

Overall length from the Rolls-Royce service handbook:

Silver Dawn —Wilmot Breedon bumpers 16' 7½", Pyrene type 16' 11½", Export type 17' 6"

Bentley Mark VI —Wilmot Breedon bumpers 16' 0", Pyrene type 16' 4½"

The first Dawn boot may not have been the same as the later Dawn and R-type
Eddaido (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Here's what the wikipedia entry on the Rolls badged version says:

A mere 760 were produced between 1949 and 1955. In 1953, the Silver Dawn body was modified in parallel to the Bentley Mk VI body and a large boot was added. While the Bentley Mk VI was renamed the Bentley R after this change, the Rolls Royce Silver Dawn kept its name.

... which is correct or at least consistent with what I already thought I knew anyway. (Though I think almost all the Rolls badged versions got exported across the water. Export or die. So those of us growing up in England weren't very much aware of the standard steel bodied Silver Dawn, until one or two started trickling back from less corrosion inducing climes, with the growing interest in oldtimers.) But what, please, is a "Pyrene" type. bumper? I tried looking up pyrene in wikipedia hut came away confused. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sinntal, Is the matter of the size of the boot now described correctly in the article? Eddaido (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Edaido, what I found in James Taylor Original RR and Bentley p 56 is that the boots were identical between Silver Dawn and MkVI/ R-type. The Silver Dawn got the large boot with Chassis number SKE2 (E-series) in 1952. On the next page is as well a photo of a short boot Silver Dawn that looks exactly like a Mark VI, but with a different bumper with larger overriders. So Silver Dawn A-D had a short boot, E-J had long boot like the r-type. This does not explain the discrepancy in length you describe. Are you sure that the RR Service Handbook that you are quoting is referring to the A-D series short boot car? Another interesting point is that 17 ft 6 inches is 210 inches, that is longer than an R-type (200 inches per wikipedia)? This sounds more like an S-type (211.75 inches per Wikipedia)? I will look some more into this over the WE. Currently I think the passage is misleading. Best Sinntal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinntal (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sinntal you gotta sign for your contributions see Wikipedia:Signatures.
I think its quite important we get this matter clear, there is so much poor quality info floating about on the web. Is this boot the same as a Mark VI? Eddaido (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same boot as in a Mark VI Standard Steel. Sinntal (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Then I think you should amend this article providing the reference to James Young and consider making the matching adjustment in the Silver Dawn article. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I do reference to James Young? I do not know what you are referring to. I will provide the reference to James Taylor's book again which describes this in detail (and is therefore not "redundant". Please be careful removing referenced material). Sinntal (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have followed your reconmendation and made edits to the Silver Dawn section. In addition, I have edited the Mark VI section providing more details on body modification and engines. I have moved redundant info on the Continental down to this section and added a reference. Based on our previous discussion I have added the Photo of the Mulliner Mk VI Sport"s Saloon mentioned in Nutland's book and the Rippon estate car that I would certainly want to own... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinntal (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Another development from the burgeoning post-war world of plarsticks

British Cars of Tomorrow, ‘’The Times’’, Saturday, Jul 12, 1947; pg. 5; Issue 50811
“Another radical change in body construction concerns rust-proofing. At present the bonderizing process developed by the Pyrene company — a method of bonding the paint with the metal — can only be applied to mudguards and small pressings but arrangements are in hand for complete bod-shells to be treated in this way, inside and out. This is a long term improvement which should ultimately make British cars rustproof.”

By the middle of 1949 it was reported that all new Morris cars passed through a series of tanks and ovens to be made rustproof by the Pyrene bonderizing technique. The process took an hour and three-quarters. I found no further reports. Eddaido (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well well. Thank you. Charles01 (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture selection

vive la difference!

In view of the fun we've all had discussing how the boot changed when the Mark morphed into the R, I wonder if greater prominence might be given to the way the thing looked from behind when it comes to the ticklish matter of image selection. I like this one not simply because it appears to have a Dutch bus stop in the background, but because I think the light colour of the car and the overall quality of the image make it easier to pick out the shape of the boot - outline and details of panel gaps, the way the license plate was set behind a(n often rather dusty looking) piece of glass etc. Also it's not taken by me which, when it comes to participation (by me) in discussions on picture selection for an article, is possibly helpful. You could most readily tell the difference from the front, as far as I recall, because the Mark 6 came with an imposing single fog light set in the middle, ahead of the grill(e) whereas the Bentley R had twin foglights at the front. But that, of course, is far easier to modify retrospectively according to the preferences of some subsequent owner than the overall silhouette of the car. Just thinking not quite aloud, you understand. Best wishes to y'all. Charles01 (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes! what a good idea. The R-type image could replace the existing "the big boot" image in that article and the hindquarters of the standard steel car should have your photo of it on display too. Do you remember when you could get two photos into the top of an info box? Sad it went because it was ideal to show the back as well as the front of a car. I think the back is almost of equal interest. Eddaido (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ventilation Flap

A Mark VI from early Jan 1952

even easier to see the ventilation flaps on this "short-booted" Silver Dawn

I think the ventilation flap change came with the R-type, not with the 4 1/2 L engine. Do not have a reference for this, but my Mark VI has the big bore engine and the single ventilation flap. I will refrain from posting a picture of my car to avoid the inevitable struggle but whoever put this in please check. Sinntal (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC).

It was I. I don't have a wiki-source for it. I know it only because we had one of the later Mark VIs (registration PTN545) in the family fewer than sixty years ago, and back then I was at an age when one noticed stuff. However, if you take a look at [this category] you will, I think, see that most of the Mark VIs have the earlier arrangement and some - the later ones - have the side-of-bonnet vents. It's easiest to see on this adjacent picture - photographed by an enthusiast - because of the colour of the lower part of the car, but some of the darker coloured ones in the wiki category also have the later arrangement. I had thought - still think - that the change came around about the same time as the engine was bored-out a bit more but I have no reason to think that it happened on precisely the same day/chassis nbr. I hope you're persuaded, but if you're not, feel free to correct my edit on this bit. Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

PS - If you actually have one at he moment, feel free to upload a picture. Unlike most of us, who have to take our chance over matters such as the whereabouts of the sunshine and the suitability of the background, you will presumably, over time, have opportunities to choose your location and lighting conditions from a range of suitable possibilities, though maybe there'll be more possibilities after about April, in the event you're sharing my hemisphere rather than Eddaido's. But of course ... your call. Charles01 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Charles, my car is one of the early big bore Mark VI, maybe that is why I have the single flap. If I stumble over a reference I will put it in. Cheers Sinntal (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)