If you are talking road cars matching numbers is the ultimate and chassis number the base and I believe the common approach to road cars.
"therefore regardless of what motor drive train brakes etc is on the car the car identity is what it is, in this case the Bathurst museum car is the original 05 that won Bathurst in 1984, "
Its a different story with race cars according to CAMS
Its a pity CAMS cannot identify the NMRM car by logbook or database, i don't think an undamaged rear quarter is in their criteria for assigning a Bathurst win.
that it is not in original condition is neither here nor there.
Not unless you count by deception or incompetence you were lead to believe (unpainted, undamaged, no panels swapped, as raced)
For me there is one proof that the Bathurst car is 05, Harvey was punted off at turn one by George Fury mid race, the passenger side rear quarter was damaged,
Yes seen the video and photos
The car at Bathurst museum shows no sign of any damage in the rear quarter or any signs of repair.
Given that they so badly missed so many neither here nor there items(especially paint) I think for credibility sake I'd like to hear from a real expert on that one.
There are somewhere between 20 and 30 items that define a HDT race shell of this era and more by the way they are done that what was done. (The Perkins touch)
I think you would have to identify and check off the list to say a HDT race shell and very hard to differentiate between Harveys car and any other VK group C HDTproduced race shell.
Its far to hard to go through a lengthy and difficult process of verification just take it for granted that its one of two and leave it at that.
Then you can comfortably jump to " Therefore it is not the Harvey car, ergo it must be 05,"
Given the volume of changes to the NMRM car its going to take more than day-glo, 05 and a number stamp to be thorough.
No according to the investigation or is it now selective criteria which is irrefutable and credibility is only attached to the items which have not been proved to be wrong!
Sure is and until I hear from from an expert with some credibility I will remain undecided.
Cheers
Balfizar
Regardless wether you agree with part or all of the investigations you seem to discredit what I have done and written, you claim that signwriting has since been done etc etc, you doublt my expertise on the quarter panel, 25 years in the trade says my experience is good enough. But if you reckon I'm wrong, get the person you regard as an expert, seeing I'm not good enough and we will all meet at the NMRM and settle it once and for all, don't hide behind you alias, put your money where you mouth is.
I'll back myself 110percent against anyone, bev Brock or Peter champion included, they both know it and are both pretty pathetic for trying to pull the wool over the public eyes.
As for your expert opinion on the signwriting, who long have you been signwriting for? You seem to know all so you must be an experienced signwriter.
If you so sure balizfar, there still 3 drivers out there, ask them yourself they tell you what you don't want to hear.
I'm free most weekends I'll arrange the visit with the curator, just let me know when you have your panel expert, looking forward it.
