Something that has me pondering.........

[bootneck]

Some of you may know that I have been asking for information on vehicle chassis details for buses and trucks; however only a few responses came back with visual stuff that I could use to make a chassis for any model.  Most of the responses, thank you to those that have contributed, have been of the external views of the vehicles and it was those images that has got me pondering.

 

Very little seems to be out there that shows what the manufacturers chassis', axles and prop shafts look like, but the framework and bodywork that has been built by other companies predominate any searches.   So, if we can only see the parts others have made, why aren't these vehicles called by their name?   Even the experts and enthusiasts seem to recognise the vehicles by the coachwork so why not refer to them Weymann's,  Alexanders, Park Royals, Harringtons, Roes or Brush etc?   An example could be an "Alexander PD2, on Leyland chassis" and so on.

 

Mike

[Black Knight]

In my world they mostly are

eg, a Park Ward Rolls Royce, a Gordon-England Austin 7, a Duplex Bedford

[bootneck]

Yes, I can see the logic in that.

Mike

[richellis]

You would say for a bus ‘Park Royal PD2’ for example.

The body was slightly different, We had similar age Massey bodied buses, same basic body side by side the Guy was slightly different to the Leyland version. So we had a ‘Massey body Guy’ and a ‘Massey body PD3’

 

[bootneck]

Thanks Rich.  It still has me wondering why the publications call them AEC,  Leyland and Guy etc, when all that can be seen is the coachwork.   Having said that, I am really enjoying this step-change over to building vehicle models.  I am still, sort of, trying to resist building a large scale model of an ex-military truck or bus in commercial service.

 

cheers,

Mike

[Black Knight]

I think its possibly that, in my world of vintage motoring, the rolling chassis & engine combination is more important than the body on it as the body can be quickly changed and often is changed

A late friend of mine ran a 1930s 8 litre Rolls Bentley for which he had about 6 different bodies which he changed according to the competition that he was going to do. A body on that car could be changed over in a couple of hours. In his case we just referred to his car as his Rolls Bentley

But some other cars which had their bodywork more permanent were referred by their coach work - Van den Plas or Park Ward Bentley, or Gordon-England 7

[bootneck]

1 hour ago, Black Knight said:

..............the rolling chassis & engine combination is more important than the body

Then why didn't they call the Supermarine Spitfire a Rolls Royce Griffon/Merlin, or the Boeing 747 the Pratt & Whitney JT9D?   No, just joking there Fred and I understand your explanation, thanks.

 

Mike

[Silverkite]

On 10/6/2021 at 3:51 PM, bootneck said:

Some of you may know that I have been asking for information on vehicle chassis details for buses and trucks; however only a few responses came back with visual stuff that I could use to make a chassis for any model.  Most of the responses, thank you to those that have contributed, have been of the external views of the vehicles and it was those images that has got me pondering.

 

Very little seems to be out there that shows what the manufacturers chassis', axles and prop shafts look like, but the framework and bodywork that has been built by other companies predominate any searches.   So, if we can only see the parts others have made, why aren't these vehicles called by their name?   Even the experts and enthusiasts seem to recognise the vehicles by the coachwork so why not refer to them Weymann's,  Alexanders, Park Royals, Harringtons, Roes or Brush etc?   An example could be an "Alexander PD2, on Leyland chassis" and so on.

 

Mike

 

For trucks I saw something on a truck? modeling forum but it was for US trucks and the user posted some brochures and what it looked like a maintenance pamphlet for a Kenworth or a LS cabover, it had all hydraulic hoses and all kind of details down to the bolt and nuts related to the suspension mounts and electric cable for sensors and rear lights.

On yet another forum I remember seeing something related to Daf XF taglift and a conversion set casted in resin bundled with a sketch with hydraulic hoses and so on.

 

Don't ever think that for cars it's more easy because different Aoshima kits have a generic chassis based on RC car with electric parts removed and a generic and probably ok~ish interior, Fujimi also shared many chassis with different models some are a little accurate others are not because there is nothing in common with a Mazda FD3S chassis and a Nissan BRN32 one, yet Fujimi said whatever and delivered that to you.

 

Luigi