422 replies to this topic

[REDA9X]

It must have been very hard for the Holden factory team to source new doors and glass back in 1984 when these cars were new, I mean theres no way they would have had a stockpile of parts or ever swapped things back and forth when they were racing them in the day. The second picture Tim supplied shows the 05 car with the Marlboro the same as the Bathurst car just after the build, who is to say the car even had the same doors on it in the photoshoot to when it was raced.  The 1979 Brock A9X must be a fake too because it has a UC interior. This is getting beyond rediculous now.

[Balfizar]

Now let me get this right! They swapped the doors and redid the signwriting, and thats why the paint guage did not detect anything. Because the "Investigation" clearly indicates that you could not in the era (1984) remove, repair, respray or resignwrite and it be undetectable with the "calibrated" paint guage.

 

It that right is that a fair and clear intrepritation?

 

Now I was just wondering!  How do you apply that criteria to a rear quarter panel where it would seem that the HDT logo in the photo on the way (pushed) to the photoshoot and at the photo IMHO clearly shows the HDT logo protruding down on to the side of the rear bar. The bottom of the H and the D and the T (the white paint) can bee seen on the top mould of the side of the rear bar.

 

At Sandown it is clear that the HDT logo does not protrude on to the top dress mould on the side of the rear bar.

 

 

Borrowed photos

 

 

At sandown I think I can see a marked change in logo size, it does not protrude onto the top dress mould of the side of the rear bar and also does not protrude on to the eyebrow/tailight area.

 

 

Would that indicate that the logo was re-signwritten on to the infamous rear quarter panel, the one that had so much attention?

 

It has been said before.

 

If the use and application and accuracy of the paint guage is correct and there  "IS" no  detection or sign of repair, respray, re-signwrite then my only conclusion can be that the car at the NMRM is NOT 05.

 

It all depends on whether you can see or acknowledge that the painted logo was changed.

 

Let the excuses begin! There is going to be some absolute crackers!

 

Cheers

Balfizar

Edited by Balfizar, 12 March 2014 - 01:57 PM.

[REDA9X]

Not sure what you think you are pointing out here, but you'll also note the car never had 2 flags on it either, yet another stuff up with the restoration of the 25 car to the 05 car.

[Balfizar]

Not sure what you think you are pointing out here, but you'll also note the car never had 2 flags on it either, yet another stuff up with the restoration of the 25 car to the 05 car.

 

What I am pointing out is that IMHO the logo on the rear quarter panel has been changed (reduced in size not to overlap on the bar)

This change of logo happened between photoshoot and sandown

 According to the investigation this would be detected by paint guage and was not.

 

 Its quite simple,  if what you can see with your own eyes could not be detected on the NMRM car with the paint guage and the paint gauge was used correctly and the results were true, then either the photoshoot car is not 05 or the NMRM car is not 05.

 

Take your pick!

 

I am sure you will wish to remain (Not sure what you think you are pointing out here) in  a confused state, its much safer to remain confused and much easier to hide from the implications of these photos.

 

Just a short note of correction:- in your haste to prove everything I have put forward as incorrect or ridiculous you missed the fact that 05 wore 2 aussie flags for the photoshoot.

 

 

But then again I would not expect anything less.

 

Cheers

Balfizar

Edited by Balfizar, 12 March 2014 - 05:28 PM.

[Rockoz]

Was the car in the photoshoot the car that raced?

Should be doing comparisons with a car that has been on the track.

Who knows. Could the car in the photoshoot just be a mock up for display?

And not the real car?

Will see if I can dig up my photos from 84 and compare

[REDA9X]

Balfizar you obviously choose to read only the bits you want to, I can see the two falgs in the photoshoot thats why I pointed it out. Your whole arguement is all based on paint, and thats it. The fact remains Brock sold a car as 05, and gave one away as 05, thats deception and fraud. It came back to bite him on the arse many years later, and since the museum car was given away, not sold, he chose to say it wasn't 05. You can forget all your paint testing eveidence, try using some common sense, oh sorry thats a super power these days.

[S pack]

Was the car in the photoshoot the car that raced?

Should be doing comparisons with a car that has been on the track.

Who knows. Could the car in the photoshoot just be a mock up for display?

And not the real car?

Will see if I can dig up my photos from 84 and compare

Hmmmm, interesting concept. Good to see someone is thinking outside the square.

[Rockoz]

Not sure but MHDT had many display cars over the years.

[S pack]

Not sure but MHDT had many display cars over the years.

Yes, Promo cars!

[xu2308]

Getting Sherlock like for sure, Shame the C.A.M.S Log Books are not around for both these cars, would fix this issue real Quick

[REDA9X]

As I've said a few times, the CAMS log books existed up until not all that long ago and clearly showed chassis 6 as 05 and chassis 7 as 25. PB caused all of this and no one wanted to go against him.

[Rockoz]

I remember a magazine interview with Brocky from the Torana days.

He said that when they repainted they stripped them back. Would have been A9X times from memory.

The reasoning was the weight saving from the paint was around 8 kilos.

I remember that non structural bolts were drilled out also for weight saving.

[Balfizar]

Not picking sides, but very interested.......  now anyways ...  ........  But with the paint thicknesser thing'o, if the panel was stripped back to bare metal, and repainted,  wouldn't it only show one layer of paint ??

Investigation claims factory paint thicknesses cannot be duplicated. 

Investigation also claims signwriting cannot be removed without damaging underlying paint also necessitating a repaint.

Therefore paint gauge will detect any repainted surface with or without signwriting.

its not the signwriting thats the give away its the new paint it is written on.

 

Cheers

Balfizar

[S pack]

Anyone wondered where's the exhaust pipe? It should exit under the passenger side rocker panel.

[xu2308]

REDA9X has solved the Mystery from the CAMS log books he seen, seems straight forward to me

[REDA9X]

I never said I saw them, however the person who had them in their possession is 100% reliable

REDA9X has solved the Mystery from the CAMS log books he seen, seems straight forward to me

[YELLAcakeu308]

Mr champion should buy the NMRM. Solved

[Balfizar]

 Hi al , Just because REDA9X said he saw some log book mean's nothing without the real copy.  REDA9X has made mistake's before on other car's on this forum.The only real way to find out for sure , is to find number's stamped on the Body some were & send it to Keith at CAMS . The only way to know for sure is to have a Application  Vehicle Log Book form from CAMS.  This is more important that the Log Book , as it has Log book Number  Body Number  and so on. Good Luck.. 

I have already spoken to Keith S at CAMS and quoted him the NMRM chassis number.  "We do not have any record in the CAMS system of that chassis number (computer  database I expect)

Cheers

Balfizar

[xu2308]

Any way back to the Real Slim Shady, 05 or 05 please stand up stand up

[Balfizar]

Was the car in the photoshoot the car that raced?

Should be doing comparisons with a car that has been on the track.

Who knows. Could the car in the photoshoot just be a mock up for display?

And not the real car?

Will see if I can dig up my photos from 84 and compare

Given that it was reported in Australian Motor Racing +GT #9 on sale August 29th that the 05 car was not ready for the photoshoot 7th August

and Harveys car was laging behind that and that most of the work time consuming wise it building these cars was in paint and panel it is unlikely that a 3rd VK Big Banger even if it was just a rolling shell would have been made. HDT struggled to get 2 cars ready for sandown it is unlikelythere was a mockup build.  Also there was never any trace of a mockup after Sandown.

The 3rd car Bev speaks of is a known and another story.

 

The photos of a 05 vk big banger in the photoshoot livery, which is one of 3 variations that 05 wore is of no bearing as to whether the livery was changed, we know it was and why the change was not detected is a mystery.

 There are 5 photos of the rear quarter HDT logo protruding onto the bar.

one is poor quality and marginal in HDT workshop.

one is the work base photo of 05 being push on to the transporter ( not a magazine photo and no touch-ups)

one is a promo photo 1 black background

one is a promo photo 2 white background

one is a promo photo 3 Last of the big bangers (poster)

 

in at least 4 of these including the pushing photo which is not modified for promo use, it is clear that the HDT logo protrudes onto the rear bar and also onto the eyebrow mould /tailight.

IN the Sandown photo, the HDT logo is reduced in size, I would assume to facilitate the changing of bars without the necessity of touching up the missing overlap section.

 

Cheers

Balfizar