TIRED OF BW FILM PRICE 'EXCUSES'

CGW said:

Any chance of closing this embarrassment? Moderators???

Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon. Roll with it.

CGW said:

Any chance of closing this embarrassment? Moderators???

Click to expand...

Must be a fetish of yours; attempting to get AWESOME threads closed down.

tomalophicon said:

Must be a fetish of yours; attempting to get AWESOME threads closed down.

Click to expand...

Awesome=OT? Take it offline.

Some time ago I cleaned by myself the carburettors of Joséphine, but I never brought it to the mechanic for the balancing, as I thought I would have bought a device myself. I didn't. This thread reminded me I should bring Joséphine to the mechanic, definitely.

Those OT can be really helpful

Well at least we're talking about analogue cars :|

lxdude said:

Aw, c'mon. Roll with it.

Click to expand...

I'm kinda' enjoying this myself...

:

Ken

CGW said:

Awesome=OT? Take it offline.

Click to expand...

Get a garage.

[video=youtube;U_xZ3TyzyaU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_xZ3TyzyaU[/video]

Everyone sing!
"The wheel on the bus go round, round, round,
The wheel on the bus go round, round, round,
..."

The clash of the Titans!

In this corner we have PE with 17,984 posts

Please see my post 120.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Please see my post 120.

PE

Click to expand...

<<wink>> I saw it, but I could not resist tossing in a hand grenade with the pin pulled.

Now back to the original topic.

Dude Scalextrick is sick.

Sirius Glass said:

Now back to the original topic.

Click to expand...

Awww, do we HAFTA?

I'm tired of bitchin' about film prices.

Why don't we bitch about the price of hookers then?

I had a Morris Marina, it ran great until some idiot dropped a piano on it.


I think film will go up in price to a certain level, because at that point less and less people will buy it, so they will probably keep the price at a point where they make less profit per roll but more in overall. Film REALLY is a hobby for me, so I do have the choice of shooting less, spending more, or buying 5 year expired film from ebay. I just bought 8 or 9 2-packs of HP5, because at $4.89/pack, it's pretty cheap (in fact, 4 of those packs were bought before the price hike, for something like 4.59/pack). But of course, I'll go through 1 roll a week if I'm lucky. Most of what I shoot now is digital (I have a long list of reasons), so I can still cut down my usage by a bit, but I'm sure that plenty of people here will refuse to go digital, especially those shooting medium format (because film will still be cheaper, vs that $40,000 Hasselblad digital)

Why don't we bitch about the price of hookers then?

Click to expand...

It's especially bad if you have to pay them in rolls of film!

Photo Engineer said:

Being there is better than reading about it.

Click to expand...

...but not necessarily more accurate; case in point.

PE, the disagreement in regard to the content of your original statement is minor. And it could have been responded to in a similar, and honest, fashion. What is flooring me is the sheer amount of dreck information you have pumped out, and continue to pump out, in response to my response - a response that was brief, lighthearted, and conversational. Responding to a minor point of mine with a continual stream of b.s. info, as if I and everyone else reading is ignorant and you know all about it, and then refusing to admit that any of it is wrong, deserves a pointed response.

I didn't wish to discuss it any more than with a few brief and friendly posts. And I don't want to discuss it now. But the b.s. keeps on flowing from your end. Stubbornly repeating wrong information 50 times does not make it right, nor does the "I was there, man" technique.

I am more than ready to put this to bed if you are more than ready to stop making "false factual" statements about a topic that is obviously not your area of knowledge (with my full respect to you in those areas in which you are light years ahead of most of the rest of us).

Joe O'Brien said:

It's especially bad if you have to pay them in rolls of film!

Click to expand...

You're right! Maybe it would be easier to pay in bread rolls. :munch:

Steve Smith said:

SU carburettors are very simple and shouldn't give any trouble.... until you try to balance a pair (or four).

Click to expand...

Exactly the source of the finicky maintenance on the P1800 my mom had. Multiple carbs are a mofo. As I said, the adjustment itself is easy. The balancing act it tricky. It is not impossible or even horribly difficult for a trained mechanic to balance multiple carbs...but it needs to be kept up with diligently for the car to run as well as it can IME.

I also had a tri-power Buick for a short while that never ran smoothly. Balancing multiple carbs was beyond me, so I had the hot rod mechanic around the corner work on it. It made him cuss too. But it rain better, though he suggested bringing it in for an adjustment about as often as I changed my oil. He suggested, since the car was a rust bucket anyhow, and modification, not restoration, was the obvious route, that I simply sell off the original tri-power mill and switch to a modern fuel-injected small block built for low-end torque (not high-end horsepower). I ended up selling the car to a guy who was supposedly going to restore it, and I have no idea where it is now. Probably ended up as a parts car or resold knowing the way big plans tend to go in the auto hobby.

2F/2F said:

...but not necessarily more accurate; case in point.

PE, the disagreement in regard to the content of your original statement is minor. And it could have been responded to in a similar, and honest, fashion. What is flooring me is the sheer amount of dreck information you have pumped out, and continue to pump out, in response to my response - a response that was brief, lighthearted, and conversational. Responding to a minor point of mine with a continual stream of b.s. info, as if I and everyone else reading is ignorant and you know all about it, and then refusing to admit that any of it is wrong, deserves a pointed response.

I didn't wish to discuss it any more than with a few brief and friendly posts. And I don't want to discuss it now. But the b.s. keeps on flowing from your end. Stubbornly repeating wrong information 50 times does not make it right, nor does the "I was there, man" technique.

I am more than ready to put this to bed if you are more than ready to stop making "false factual" statements about a topic that is obviously not your area of knowledge (with my full respect to you in those areas in which you are light years ahead of most of the rest of us).

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised to find that some dealers were doing raised-hood modifications, maybe to accommodate a high-rise manifold, even that early on. I saw a lot of cool stuff dealers were doing in the mid-sixties, because they would put them on their lots to sell. I was just a kid, but I remember the signs on the cars listing the mods. Back then most car dealers were located in downtown areas, and I lived downtown, so I would see the cars close up while walking past the dealerships.

It's also possible the commonly-known record is not complete.
I have argued with people (and been called a liar, or at least a maker-up of things), when in the past I spoke to supposedly knowledgeable people about the existence of the "C-type" (competition) head option on the Jaguar XK120, which made an XK120M into an XK120MC. The high-compression head boosted power to 210HP, same as the first C-type Le Mans race cars, from the standard 160. As I recall, wire wheels were standard equipment on the MC, instead of the steel disc wheels, and of course, no rear spats.

I know that because my brother owned a 1951 XK120MC. I rode in the car. I drove the car. I saw its documentation. Yet because the MC variant was not widely known or written about, I was assumed to be either wrong, or talking shit.

Nowadays even Wikipedia lists the MC variation.


I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong, because I don't know-just that something not being widely known doesn't mean it couldn't have been.

In the 60's options were much less packaged. People could go down to the dealer and order their car, which would be made to their order with their choice of options. Some options were rarely selected; some combinations were unusual; both resulted in rare versions of vehicles. Add to that the mods some dealers did themselves, just as some do now, and hey, you just never know...

This is surely one of he stupidest pissing contest I have witnessed here. Please shut down the thread from discouraging fresh members from such dribble. My 65 ford had jet engines!

lxdude,

There were many dealers, of many makes, who made their own customizations to factory cars, to sell in their own dealerships; It was quite common. (Galpin Ford here in L.A. still does this, BTW.) And you can be sure that there were always "weirdo" factory models that do not fit a standard combination of options. (Most often these were made specially for "important" individuals within the company, or in some way related to it, and never saw a showroom floor.) These dealer mods and factory-weirdos are also common knowledge to car nuts. But referring to these non-factory or factory-weirdo cars as if they were standard-issue options (e.g. I got the model with the big engine, or one level below the model that needed the raised hood) is incorrect, and makes it clear that there is an extreme misunderstanding behind the information PE presented repeatedly as fact. Add to this the fact that Mustangs in particular, along with perhaps Corvettes, are perhaps the most intensely researched and obsessed-over cars ever made, and there really is no evidence to support PEs adamant and repeated claims. (This plethora of information and documentation about Mustangs also makes it less than impressive that I know about them; I am not out to impress anybody here, just to debunk bunk.)

Klainmeister said:

This is surely one of he stupidest pissing contest I have witnessed here. Please shut down the thread from discouraging fresh members from such dribble. My 65 ford had jet engines!

Click to expand...

If your idea of a pissing contest is one man trying to diligently and thoroughly clean up after another's piss, when the guy who pissed all over the place refuses to admit he did it, as he continues to do it right in front of everyone, then you may be right...

If you don't want to hear it, please ignore me. Sorry, but bunk needs to be clearly labeled as bunk, especially in an archived forum. This is a debate about information, not personalities, so it is not a pissing contest IMO. Nonetheless, I have stated I don't wish to continue. But I will if needed to defend my points.

2F/2F said:

Multiple carbs are a mofo. As I said, the adjustment itself is easy. The balancing act it tricky. It is not impossible or even horribly difficult for a trained mechanic to balance multiple carbs...but it needs to be kept up with diligently for the car to run as well as it can IME.

Click to expand...

It's not bad when you approach it methodically. It's just making sure they draw the same vacuum, one to the next. I balance my 4-cylinder motorcycle carbs with a set of 4 mercury sticks-makes it really simple. I used to balance a triple carb E-type Jag using a single Uni-syn---more work than a two carb setup, but not that difficult, really. There is a bit of art to it-you get so you can tell when it's right.

It's usually a bitch to sychronise carbs on an engine with issues. Uniform compression, good valves, correct valve adjustment, good spark with correct timing, no vacuum leaks, all are essential. And the carbs themselves must be in good shape-no leaks around the throttle shafts, worn needles, sticking pistons, etc. And no wobbly linkage. Everything should be checked first. I check carb balance at each tune-up, and have no problems in between, unless something is amiss.

I also had a tri-power Buick for a short while that never ran smoothly. Balancing multiple carbs was beyond me, so I had the hot rod mechanic around the corner work on it. It made him cuss too. But it rain better, though he suggested bringing it in for an adjustment about as often as I changed my oil.

Click to expand...

I don't know much about the Buick, but I've seen dual-quad and six-pack setups work just fine with a good balancing job.

It's sort of like Quadrajet carbs- they are often cursed at because they're not as easy as a Holley, but they can be tuned to run really sweet. It just takes some time and care. They can also be made a mess of if someone doesn't take the time to do it right, or doesn't know how.

Klainmeister said:

This is surely one of he stupidest pissing contest I have witnessed here. Please shut down the thread from discouraging fresh members from such dribble.

Click to expand...

Do you mean drivel? Because a pissing contest can't be won with dribble!
Though racing contests have been won by Dick Trickle...

My 65 ford had jet engines!

Click to expand...

Awww. Mine just had a 352.

CGW said:

Any chance of closing this embarrassment? Moderators???

Click to expand...

Is the off-topic really any worse than the original topic?