![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
re recent edit warring
Can we please source the following:
None of these are well-enough sourced in the earlier version to be unequivocal here, but bulk reverts are not a productive way to proceed. If you're going to question any these, please add specific sources. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Andy, go find another place to pick a fight. This article is good as it is, so just leave it. Thomas.W talk to me 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I realize that the internet doesn't necessarily give one editor insight into anothers' background, so I'll give you mine and you can make of that what you will. I've owned a Tiger since 1998, and in the fifteen years since then I've worked on pretty much every part of it from the interior to the wheel studs. I've also attended three of the five Sunbeam International ("SUNI") events in 1999, 2004 and 2009, and at that time I've talked to many Tiger owners including "spmdr", Norman Miller (who has maintained the definitive Tiger owners' registry since well before I bought my Tiger), Bill Carroll (author of "an exceptional motorcar"), and many other Tiger owners and enthusiasts including the folks that owned the original prototypes, both of which I've seen and touched. I have "The Book of Norman", "an exceptional motorcar", "the Tiger/Alpine Gold Portfolio" and a number of other contemporary and retrospective books. Bill Carroll's book, in particular, has several egregious errors - among other things, he contends that Mk1A production ended before my car was made. When I have time, I edit http://www.tigersunited.com .
The production numbers of 534 for Mk 2 and 7085 total Tigers (including Mk1, 1A and 2) comes from inspection of the Rootes production records by Norman Miller and other contemporary Tiger historians http://www.tigersunited.com/history/prodfigures.asp . The Tiger had one Panhard rod, which fit between the rear axle and the Alpine spare tire well. Between the Mk1A and Mk2 production break, the orientation of this panhard rod was changed so that the axle mount and chassis mount were each swapped left-for-right. All production Tigers had a Dana 44 type rear axle... this can be established from simply looking at examples that are known to be unmodified in that area. Early production Tigers had the Borg-Warner four-speed transmission but at some point (don't have the specific chassis # where the break occurred, can look it up in the book of Norman) the Ford "Toploader" was introduced. It has a different tailhousing from the transmission used in other contemporary Fords, and Tiger (1/1A) transmissions accordingly carry a HEH-E serial number prefixes which are not the same as that of the Mustang. The reversion of the "filter behind the generator" edit is particularly laughable, because any picture of a stock Tiger engine bay will clearly show the oil filter to be on the front of the left-side cylinder head, while the generator is mounted on the front of the right-side cylinder head.
So... when I read the edits attributed to SPMDR, which are in line with the current knowledge base of the community of actual Tiger owners and their research which includes trips the Coventry museum to inspect and copy Tiger production records; and the reversions, which are based on a book that is known to be inaccurate, I'm disappointed to see you're rejecting information simply because it doesn't fit the established dogma. Did you guys know that the identity of the third Tiger prototype as the Le Mans test mule was not proven until its second restoration, over 35 years after it was built? Sometimes new information comes to light due to digging by the owners, and not authors of books...
Here's a serious question that evidently needs answering in the light of this discussion (and my previous edits on this page about a decade ago, that were also rejected because they conflicted with "book knowledge"): When old books are factually inaccurate, but widely quoted even by current authors, and new information comes to light but is not circulated in print, how do you establish a proper citation? TheoSmit ( talk) 20:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. As a for-instance, here's this: http://www.tigersunited.com/resources/parts_service/LAT-brochure.pdf which is a scan of a dealer LAT catalog. Does such a scan suffice as a source? As a second for-instance, I can (actually, it's been in process for years) provide and make available on tigersunited.com, pictures of concours-accurate restoration of a Tiger. Does that suffice as a source for chassis details such as what rear-axle type and/or Panhard rod details? Last, Norm Miller's "The book of Norman" provides a listing of every single Tiger produced including VIN, chassis "JAL" number, and engine/trans/diff serial numbers, based on the Coventry build records. Would you accept the 534/7085 production numbers based on my say-so that these are the numbers in that book, or would you need to see the book itself, or scans from the book? All of these can probably be arranged... TheoSmit ( talk) 20:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Rear axle: Salisbury 4HA as noted here: http://www.tigersunited.com/resources/wsm/wsmG3.asp . That page is a scan/OCR of the corresponding page (G3) of the Tiger Workshop manual which is available in print from Sunbeam Specialties. The Alpine did not have this rear axle (no, I don't have a citation for that). The 4HA has the same gear geometry and critical dimensions as the Dana 44 ( http://www.freewebs.com/dobush/rearaxle.html, http://www.landroveraddict.com/forums/thread.cfm?threadID=73930 halfway down the page) and many contemporary Tiger owners use Dana 44 service parts and complete gearsets. TheoSmit ( talk) 21:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
A couple of errors were repeatedly reinserted after Spmdr's well-intentioned but ham-fisted efforts to correct them: 1. The Le Mans cars did not run the later, larger engine. They had the 260. Tiger, an Exceptional Motorcar p. 35 [2] 2. The Tiger was not a development of the 1953-onwards (Sunbeam Talbot) Alpine, but of the Sunbeam Alpine introduced in 1958/9 (same source, p. 9).
The article may contain other fundamental errors (I haven't checked). Perhaps Spmdr, who seems knowledgeable, will come back to it when he's unblocked and after he has boned up on WP:RS etc. EC could assist him with the writing? Writegeist ( talk) 23:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
First I should note that I was incorrect in calling the Tiger's rear axle a Dana 44; although the Salisbury 4HA was basically a Dana design made under license by Salisbury. Salisbury was already at that time a division of the Dana corporation, which is well established fact. The "minor suspension modifications" in the "development" paragraph is misleading, since the only suspension parts shared between the Tiger and the Alpine are the upper and lower front control arms and the front spindles and uprights.
Second I'd like to present some further information on the Tiger transmissions that should lead to some updates in the Wiki text, because several passages that describe the transmissions used at various times of development and production are known to be incorrect. The Toploader ( http://www.davidkeetoploaders.com/toploaderhistory.htm, /info/en/?search=Ford_Toploader_transmission) did not enter production until 1964. Therefore it would have been impossible for the "Shelby" Tiger prototype (the white car) to use the toploader transmission, as suggested in the main article in the "initial prototypes" paragraph. In fact, Bill Carroll's book "An Exceptional Motorcar" includes on page 19 a reprint of a memo from John Panks to Brian Rootes, where it specifically notes that the Shelby prototype has a Borg-Warner manual transmission (and the first prototype has a Ford Fairlane automatic transmission - this was the subject of some debate up above).
Further it would have been extremely unlikely for the le Mans coupes to be outfitted with the Toploader transmissions because they would have been in very short supply in early 1964 (Ford was just introducing them in the 1964 model year) while the Borg-Warner T-10 was readily available at the time, with many gear ratios that would make it suitable as a racing transmission as well as an aluminum alloy case that was significantly lighter than the cast-iron toploader case.
Bill Carroll noted that preproduction Tigers and production Tigers up to serial number B9470057 were built with the Borg-Warner T-10, and after that were built with the toploader. This is also noted in Norm Miller's "the Book of Norman". While the shop manual reports that Mk1 Tigers including and after B9470057 got the HEH-E transmissions and the Mk2 Tigers the HEH-B (and this is duly copied by Bill Carroll), in fact the Mk2 Tigers got the HEH-CF as noted in the Book of Norman's Tiger registry ledger. This is corroborated by the toploader type listing here http://www.davidkeetoploaders.com/idchart1.htm, which notes that the HEH-B designation was used in the 1964 model year and the HEH-CF in 1965. This chart also notes that the specific toploader transmission used in the Tiger at its introduction (the HEH-E) was used in the Mercury Meteor and the Ford Fairlane, not the Mustang as suggested in the Wiki article.
So I would suggest the following changes, to start with: 1. In the "Initial Production" and "Competition History" sections, it is incorrect to say that Toploaders were ever fitted to the prototype or to the le Mans race cars - they all used Borg-Warner T-10 transmissions. 2. In the "Production" paragraph, the reference to a "Mustang" transmission should be replaced with "Ford Fairlane" transmission, since that most closely reflects the reality. The eventual change to the HEH-CF transmission for the Mk2 Tiger also coincides with Ford's change from a five bolt to a six-bolt block to bellhousing bolt pattern, larger input bearing on the transmission, and a wider spaced mounting pattern between the transmission and the bellhousing itself - these changes also make it unlikely that the 1964 HEH-B would have been used in the 1967 Tiger Mk2. TheoSmit ( talk) 04:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
In 1993, Norm Miller produced "The Book of Norman", which is so far one of the few Tiger books that seriously delves into the production history of the Tiger, using the original Jensen production ledgers as well as owners' reports (submitted to George Fallehy and later Norm himself) as reference material. The Jensen ledgers are still archived at the Coventry Transport Museum and are available for viewing by visitors. This information was used to create "the International Register of Sunbeam Tigers", which is still actively managed by Norm at this site. Norm also maintains a page of Tiger information including things that have come to light after the publication of his book, here. The Book of Norman includes a listing of all Tigers produced by Jensen as well as the several prototypes that were built prior to Jensen involvement, the 73 Tigers that were discovered to have been built in South Africa as part of Rootes' CKD (Completely Knocked Down) program, including the ownership at the time of printing for the Tigers whose whereabouts had been verified by Norm or George. Based on that data, these are the production numbers:
Production | Serial Numbers | Production Dates | Total | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Le Mans Racers | B9499997 to B9499999 | April, May 1964 | 3 | |
Mk1 production | B9470001 to B9473762 + B9473767 | 64/4/07 to 65/8/24 | 3763 | B9473763 to B9473766 were never assigned to a car, note overlap with Mk1A production |
Mk1A prototype | B9479975, B9479976, PH650039, PH650040 | July, Aug 1965 | 4 | |
Mk1A production | B382000001 to B382002706 | 65/8/09 to 66/12/30 | 2706 | Note overlap with start of Mk2 production |
Mk2 Pilot Production | B382100001, B382100002 | 66/12/19 | 2 | B382100003 to B382100099 were never assigned to a car |
Mk2 Production | B382100100 to B382100633 | 66/12/23 to 67/6/27 | 534 | |
African CKD Production | B9480001 to B9480072 | 1965 to 1967 | 73 | Highest body number assignment suggests 73 cars were built |
Total | 7085 |
I haven't seen the Jensen ledgers personally but based on the way they are described in Norm's book, it appears that the existence of B9473763 to B9473766 and B382100003 to B382100099 can be refuted because they do not have an entry in the ledgers. Hopefully this provides useful insight to the overall production number question and (if you accept the Jensen ledgers as a valid source, which is deemed to be fairly irrefutable by Tiger owners) then it resolves the Mk2 production number question. It should be noted that in addition to the Jensen ledger data, neither George Fallehy nor Norm Miller, in their stewardship of the Tiger registry, has ever seen or heard of an owner reporting a Mk2 with a serial number in that first 100 (other than '01 and '02). The existence of the South African Tigers and their B948xxxx serial numbers is supported by actual registration and ownership confirmation of at least 40 of these cars (as of TBON's printing) TheoSmit ( talk) 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
"... if you accept the Jensen ledgers as a valid source". I regard them simply as one of a number of sources that conflict. Eric Corbett 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I've got no doubt that Robson's figures are definitive, as he claims to have cross-checked them against recorded chassis numbers: 1649 cars produced in 1964, 3020 in 1965, and 1781 in 1966, which comes to 6450, all Tiger Is. The last Tiger I was assembled on 9 December 1966. Then there were 633 Tiger IIs produced in 1967, giving us a grand total of 7083. I'll go through and make sure we're consistent. Eric Corbett 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC). The Jensen logs indicate that the Tiger I own (B382002705) was made on December 30, 1966. Do you suppose that Jensen made that up? By the way, that whole thread between you and Dennis there is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You start out being unsure, admit to guesswork and a lack of verifiability of any of the information, and by the end of it you're slapping each other on the back because you've "solved" things although through it all you note that you're making assumptions and approximations. On the other hand, Norm Miller's book (do you have a copy, or have you ever seen/read it?) provides a car-by-car account, introduces the African CKD Tigers, and moreover provides cross-check comments on every entry in the Jensen ledgers to note potential conflict or errors. TheoSmit ( talk) 18:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Production | Serial Numbers | Production Dates | Total | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
1964 Mk1 production | B9470001 to B9471649 | 64/4/07 to 65/8/24 | 1649 | Total 1964 production 1649 |
1965 Mk1 production | B9471650 to B9473762 | 64/4/07 to 65/8/24 | 2113 | Total Mk1 production 3762 |
1965 Mk1A production | B382000001 to B38200908 | 65/8/09 to 65/12/31 | 908 | Total 1965 production 3021 |
1966 Mk1A production | B382000909 to B382002706 | 66/1/01 to 66/12/09 | 1798 | Taylor calculates this range as 1797. Total Mk1A production 2706 |
1966 Mk2 Production | B382100100 to B382100129 | 66/12/23 to 67/6/27 | 30 | Total 1966 production 1828 |
1967 Mk2 Production | B382100130 to B382100633 | 66/12/23 to 67/6/27 | 504 | Taylor calculates this range as 503... |
Total | 7002 | Taylor somehow gets to 7067, table notes 572 Mk2's sold even though only 534 were built. |
The reason I'm laying it out like this is so that we can see where the similarities are to other authors and where the differences are. Taylor has made a fairly huge consistency error in his own table. He's broken out the yearly build by serial number and date range, then on the right he notes sales figures. For the mk1 and Mk1A, the sales figures are one or two cars less than the total production - that can happen for any number of reasons. But for the Mk2, the sales figure is 38 greater than the number he reports as having been built.
Compared to Robson, the 1964 production agrees, the 1965 production is off by 1 (although Taylor notes 1965 sales are 3020), 1966 production is off by 17 Mk1's and 30 mk2's, and the remainder is off due to the conflict between the assumed start numbering of Mk2 production. Compared to Norm's book, Taylor does not include the prototypes for each series, omits B9473767, and doesn't list the South African Tigers probably because they were unknown or unreported at that point. Looking through the production register in Norm's book shows that 17 Mk1A's were built after December 9 (when Mk2 production started), and I suggest this explains the 1966 Mk1A production discrepancy between Taylor's total and Robson's.
I did also find in the "Sunbeam Tiger and Alpine Gold Portfolio" compiled by R.M.Clarke, two references to the 571 number... on page 171 and 182 (the Practical Classics article reprint and the Classic and Sportscar article reprint). However, both of those articles also have incorrect Mk1/Mk1A production breakdowns and no further detail, so I don't think they have merit.
The point of all this, first off, is that one can get different numbers by choosing to omit prototypes (that would account for about 11 Tigers from Norm's 7085 number) or due to the fact that the 72 or 73 South African Tigers remained unknown to most Tiger researchers until the 1980's (after Taylor's book and Carroll's book went to print) and it appears that Robson also hasn't included them anywhere. So, if any "definitive" total could be calculated, it should be accompanied by a note saying what was included, what was deliberately left out, and which parts are controversial. Because of the rather unique history of the Tiger and its production method(s), the total number of cars is significant to the article and my opinion is it deserves more detail in the article than it currently has.
Last thing on the Mk2 production: As you may know, when the bodies were built at Pressed Steel, they got a chassis tag that is separate from the VIN plate, but it's screwed to the scuttle just rearward of the VIN plate and along the edge of the panel. Alpines got plates with the ID "SALxxxxxx" where the xxxxxx was a six-digit number; Tigers got plates with the ID "JALxxxxxx". Presumably this indicated the subsequent assembly location: Sunbeam (for Alpines) and Jensen (for Tigers). The numbers were sequential in the order that the bodies were built; but (at least for Tigers) there is not an exact linear correspondence between the JAL numbers and the VIN serial numbers because the body order frequently got mixed up in shipping. For the Mk1A Tigers the range is JAL660000 to JAL662705; For the Mk2 Tigers, the number range is reported (in Norm's book, from the Jensen ledgers) to start with JAL70000; JAL70001 corresponds to B382100101 and JAL700533 is assigned to B382100632 (JAL700532 goes with B382100633). There are no body numbers in the log higher than JAL700533. This would support the position that the number range B382100003 to B382100099 is vacant and was never built, giving 2 pre-production and 534 production Mk2s. TheoSmit ( talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I have found that doing what Wiki suggests can can get some people VERY excited.
And it appears to be a vise and virtue of Wiki.
I congratulate ALL who have assisted with the effort to bring this page to FA status.
However, As Wiki has predicted, most text can be improved.
It's time to bring FA to the next level.
Spmdr ( talk) 13:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"The Sunbeam Tiger was a development of the Sunbeam Alpine introduced by the British manufacturer Rootes in 1953."Do you dispute that the Alpine was introduced in 1953? Where does the article say that the Tiger has anything in common with the 1953 Alpine engineering wise? In fact it makes it very clear later on that the Tiger was based on the Alpine IV, itself a redesign of the 1953 Alpine. But no doubt we could make that clearer if that's what you're upset about. Eric Corbett 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
""The Sunbeam Tiger was a development of the Sunbeam Alpine, introduced by the British manufacturer Rootes in 1953."It is true that the "Mark" Alpine was introduced in 1953; but it was a development of the Talbot coupe. It is not true that the Tiger was developed from that Alpine. The Tiger was a development of the totally redesigned "Series" Alpine that was introduced in 1958 and in production from 1959 to 1968. I'm not trying to make stuff up - just being accurate in the details. TheoSmit ( talk) 20:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"The kerb weight of the car increased from the 2,220 lb (1,010 kg) of the standard Alpine to 2,653 lb (1,203 kg)."Eric Corbett 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the year of the Alpine, I direct eyes to Carroll (1988) ISBN 910390-26-6 page 9. Also in TIGER the making of a Sports Car Mike Taylor (1979) ISBN 0 85614 052 X, page 19. And get a load of this title: Sunbeam Alpine & Tiger 1959-1967 R.M. Clarke Brooklands Books ISBN 0 906 589 576, I'll look through for page numbers if anyone would like me to.
Spmdr ( talk) 00:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
We are trying to figure out how to bring some real-life relevance to this page within the guidelines of Wikipedia. It would be helpful, if you were to try to think of ways that we can use original source information to support or discredit the WP:RS "proper" sources, because as you can see, comparing the "proper" sources against each other directly gives you no inkling as to whether or not their research was actually any good. Way back when, everybody said the world was flat... because all the books (except for a couple of obscure ones) said the world was flat... TheoSmit ( talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Eric, I looked up the details on the Mk2 survivors as of 1993 as compiled by Norm Miller and George Fallehy. Out of the 536 Mk2 Tigers listed in the Jensen ledgers (counting the pilot production units), 264 were 'known' to the registry in that they had a specific owner listed against the car, or they were listed as 'Junked', indicating that that car was known to have been dismantled or destroyed. In the list of 534 from B382100100 to B382100533, the largest sequential gap of 'unknown' Tigers was eight. With this information, it seems extremely unlikely that a further 98 cars all in serial number sequence had never been seen.
I'd like to propose the following text below to lead out the "Versions" section:
I'm open to suggestions... On page 56 of Bill Carroll's book he talks about Fallehy getting a report of a B948xxxx Tiger. At the time they had no idea what it was... as I re-read all this stuff I see that many of the authors had hints that there were interesting things behind all the production data, but didn't dig down to the bottom of the story. TheoSmit ( talk) 05:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article, for the most part, display images of "stock" Tigers? I.e., without chrome headlight rings, incorrect steering wheels, aftermarket road wheels, etc? Pragmath ( talk) 20:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The date of introduction of the Alpine was recently changed (by user Pragmath) from 1953 to 1959. As punctuated, the original date of 1953 would appear to be correct. I presume the change to 1959 was intended to indicate that the Tiger was developed from the Alpine Series I, introduced in 1959). Though this could be treated as a matter of punctuation (a comma being used before a supplementary explanation, with no comma before restricting or defining information), I think the sentence should perhaps be reworded to clarify exactly what is meant (possibly including both dates), preferably by someone with access to the cited source. -- Boson ( talk) 12:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)(Punctuation fixed -- Boson ( talk) 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sunbeam Tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—
InternetArchiveBot (
Report bug)
19:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
re recent edit warring
Can we please source the following:
None of these are well-enough sourced in the earlier version to be unequivocal here, but bulk reverts are not a productive way to proceed. If you're going to question any these, please add specific sources. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Andy, go find another place to pick a fight. This article is good as it is, so just leave it. Thomas.W talk to me 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I realize that the internet doesn't necessarily give one editor insight into anothers' background, so I'll give you mine and you can make of that what you will. I've owned a Tiger since 1998, and in the fifteen years since then I've worked on pretty much every part of it from the interior to the wheel studs. I've also attended three of the five Sunbeam International ("SUNI") events in 1999, 2004 and 2009, and at that time I've talked to many Tiger owners including "spmdr", Norman Miller (who has maintained the definitive Tiger owners' registry since well before I bought my Tiger), Bill Carroll (author of "an exceptional motorcar"), and many other Tiger owners and enthusiasts including the folks that owned the original prototypes, both of which I've seen and touched. I have "The Book of Norman", "an exceptional motorcar", "the Tiger/Alpine Gold Portfolio" and a number of other contemporary and retrospective books. Bill Carroll's book, in particular, has several egregious errors - among other things, he contends that Mk1A production ended before my car was made. When I have time, I edit http://www.tigersunited.com .
The production numbers of 534 for Mk 2 and 7085 total Tigers (including Mk1, 1A and 2) comes from inspection of the Rootes production records by Norman Miller and other contemporary Tiger historians http://www.tigersunited.com/history/prodfigures.asp . The Tiger had one Panhard rod, which fit between the rear axle and the Alpine spare tire well. Between the Mk1A and Mk2 production break, the orientation of this panhard rod was changed so that the axle mount and chassis mount were each swapped left-for-right. All production Tigers had a Dana 44 type rear axle... this can be established from simply looking at examples that are known to be unmodified in that area. Early production Tigers had the Borg-Warner four-speed transmission but at some point (don't have the specific chassis # where the break occurred, can look it up in the book of Norman) the Ford "Toploader" was introduced. It has a different tailhousing from the transmission used in other contemporary Fords, and Tiger (1/1A) transmissions accordingly carry a HEH-E serial number prefixes which are not the same as that of the Mustang. The reversion of the "filter behind the generator" edit is particularly laughable, because any picture of a stock Tiger engine bay will clearly show the oil filter to be on the front of the left-side cylinder head, while the generator is mounted on the front of the right-side cylinder head.
So... when I read the edits attributed to SPMDR, which are in line with the current knowledge base of the community of actual Tiger owners and their research which includes trips the Coventry museum to inspect and copy Tiger production records; and the reversions, which are based on a book that is known to be inaccurate, I'm disappointed to see you're rejecting information simply because it doesn't fit the established dogma. Did you guys know that the identity of the third Tiger prototype as the Le Mans test mule was not proven until its second restoration, over 35 years after it was built? Sometimes new information comes to light due to digging by the owners, and not authors of books...
Here's a serious question that evidently needs answering in the light of this discussion (and my previous edits on this page about a decade ago, that were also rejected because they conflicted with "book knowledge"): When old books are factually inaccurate, but widely quoted even by current authors, and new information comes to light but is not circulated in print, how do you establish a proper citation? TheoSmit ( talk) 20:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. As a for-instance, here's this: http://www.tigersunited.com/resources/parts_service/LAT-brochure.pdf which is a scan of a dealer LAT catalog. Does such a scan suffice as a source? As a second for-instance, I can (actually, it's been in process for years) provide and make available on tigersunited.com, pictures of concours-accurate restoration of a Tiger. Does that suffice as a source for chassis details such as what rear-axle type and/or Panhard rod details? Last, Norm Miller's "The book of Norman" provides a listing of every single Tiger produced including VIN, chassis "JAL" number, and engine/trans/diff serial numbers, based on the Coventry build records. Would you accept the 534/7085 production numbers based on my say-so that these are the numbers in that book, or would you need to see the book itself, or scans from the book? All of these can probably be arranged... TheoSmit ( talk) 20:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Rear axle: Salisbury 4HA as noted here: http://www.tigersunited.com/resources/wsm/wsmG3.asp . That page is a scan/OCR of the corresponding page (G3) of the Tiger Workshop manual which is available in print from Sunbeam Specialties. The Alpine did not have this rear axle (no, I don't have a citation for that). The 4HA has the same gear geometry and critical dimensions as the Dana 44 ( http://www.freewebs.com/dobush/rearaxle.html, http://www.landroveraddict.com/forums/thread.cfm?threadID=73930 halfway down the page) and many contemporary Tiger owners use Dana 44 service parts and complete gearsets. TheoSmit ( talk) 21:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
A couple of errors were repeatedly reinserted after Spmdr's well-intentioned but ham-fisted efforts to correct them: 1. The Le Mans cars did not run the later, larger engine. They had the 260. Tiger, an Exceptional Motorcar p. 35 [2] 2. The Tiger was not a development of the 1953-onwards (Sunbeam Talbot) Alpine, but of the Sunbeam Alpine introduced in 1958/9 (same source, p. 9).
The article may contain other fundamental errors (I haven't checked). Perhaps Spmdr, who seems knowledgeable, will come back to it when he's unblocked and after he has boned up on WP:RS etc. EC could assist him with the writing? Writegeist ( talk) 23:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
First I should note that I was incorrect in calling the Tiger's rear axle a Dana 44; although the Salisbury 4HA was basically a Dana design made under license by Salisbury. Salisbury was already at that time a division of the Dana corporation, which is well established fact. The "minor suspension modifications" in the "development" paragraph is misleading, since the only suspension parts shared between the Tiger and the Alpine are the upper and lower front control arms and the front spindles and uprights.
Second I'd like to present some further information on the Tiger transmissions that should lead to some updates in the Wiki text, because several passages that describe the transmissions used at various times of development and production are known to be incorrect. The Toploader ( http://www.davidkeetoploaders.com/toploaderhistory.htm, /info/en/?search=Ford_Toploader_transmission) did not enter production until 1964. Therefore it would have been impossible for the "Shelby" Tiger prototype (the white car) to use the toploader transmission, as suggested in the main article in the "initial prototypes" paragraph. In fact, Bill Carroll's book "An Exceptional Motorcar" includes on page 19 a reprint of a memo from John Panks to Brian Rootes, where it specifically notes that the Shelby prototype has a Borg-Warner manual transmission (and the first prototype has a Ford Fairlane automatic transmission - this was the subject of some debate up above).
Further it would have been extremely unlikely for the le Mans coupes to be outfitted with the Toploader transmissions because they would have been in very short supply in early 1964 (Ford was just introducing them in the 1964 model year) while the Borg-Warner T-10 was readily available at the time, with many gear ratios that would make it suitable as a racing transmission as well as an aluminum alloy case that was significantly lighter than the cast-iron toploader case.
Bill Carroll noted that preproduction Tigers and production Tigers up to serial number B9470057 were built with the Borg-Warner T-10, and after that were built with the toploader. This is also noted in Norm Miller's "the Book of Norman". While the shop manual reports that Mk1 Tigers including and after B9470057 got the HEH-E transmissions and the Mk2 Tigers the HEH-B (and this is duly copied by Bill Carroll), in fact the Mk2 Tigers got the HEH-CF as noted in the Book of Norman's Tiger registry ledger. This is corroborated by the toploader type listing here http://www.davidkeetoploaders.com/idchart1.htm, which notes that the HEH-B designation was used in the 1964 model year and the HEH-CF in 1965. This chart also notes that the specific toploader transmission used in the Tiger at its introduction (the HEH-E) was used in the Mercury Meteor and the Ford Fairlane, not the Mustang as suggested in the Wiki article.
So I would suggest the following changes, to start with: 1. In the "Initial Production" and "Competition History" sections, it is incorrect to say that Toploaders were ever fitted to the prototype or to the le Mans race cars - they all used Borg-Warner T-10 transmissions. 2. In the "Production" paragraph, the reference to a "Mustang" transmission should be replaced with "Ford Fairlane" transmission, since that most closely reflects the reality. The eventual change to the HEH-CF transmission for the Mk2 Tiger also coincides with Ford's change from a five bolt to a six-bolt block to bellhousing bolt pattern, larger input bearing on the transmission, and a wider spaced mounting pattern between the transmission and the bellhousing itself - these changes also make it unlikely that the 1964 HEH-B would have been used in the 1967 Tiger Mk2. TheoSmit ( talk) 04:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
In 1993, Norm Miller produced "The Book of Norman", which is so far one of the few Tiger books that seriously delves into the production history of the Tiger, using the original Jensen production ledgers as well as owners' reports (submitted to George Fallehy and later Norm himself) as reference material. The Jensen ledgers are still archived at the Coventry Transport Museum and are available for viewing by visitors. This information was used to create "the International Register of Sunbeam Tigers", which is still actively managed by Norm at this site. Norm also maintains a page of Tiger information including things that have come to light after the publication of his book, here. The Book of Norman includes a listing of all Tigers produced by Jensen as well as the several prototypes that were built prior to Jensen involvement, the 73 Tigers that were discovered to have been built in South Africa as part of Rootes' CKD (Completely Knocked Down) program, including the ownership at the time of printing for the Tigers whose whereabouts had been verified by Norm or George. Based on that data, these are the production numbers:
Production | Serial Numbers | Production Dates | Total | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Le Mans Racers | B9499997 to B9499999 | April, May 1964 | 3 | |
Mk1 production | B9470001 to B9473762 + B9473767 | 64/4/07 to 65/8/24 | 3763 | B9473763 to B9473766 were never assigned to a car, note overlap with Mk1A production |
Mk1A prototype | B9479975, B9479976, PH650039, PH650040 | July, Aug 1965 | 4 | |
Mk1A production | B382000001 to B382002706 | 65/8/09 to 66/12/30 | 2706 | Note overlap with start of Mk2 production |
Mk2 Pilot Production | B382100001, B382100002 | 66/12/19 | 2 | B382100003 to B382100099 were never assigned to a car |
Mk2 Production | B382100100 to B382100633 | 66/12/23 to 67/6/27 | 534 | |
African CKD Production | B9480001 to B9480072 | 1965 to 1967 | 73 | Highest body number assignment suggests 73 cars were built |
Total | 7085 |
I haven't seen the Jensen ledgers personally but based on the way they are described in Norm's book, it appears that the existence of B9473763 to B9473766 and B382100003 to B382100099 can be refuted because they do not have an entry in the ledgers. Hopefully this provides useful insight to the overall production number question and (if you accept the Jensen ledgers as a valid source, which is deemed to be fairly irrefutable by Tiger owners) then it resolves the Mk2 production number question. It should be noted that in addition to the Jensen ledger data, neither George Fallehy nor Norm Miller, in their stewardship of the Tiger registry, has ever seen or heard of an owner reporting a Mk2 with a serial number in that first 100 (other than '01 and '02). The existence of the South African Tigers and their B948xxxx serial numbers is supported by actual registration and ownership confirmation of at least 40 of these cars (as of TBON's printing) TheoSmit ( talk) 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
"... if you accept the Jensen ledgers as a valid source". I regard them simply as one of a number of sources that conflict. Eric Corbett 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I've got no doubt that Robson's figures are definitive, as he claims to have cross-checked them against recorded chassis numbers: 1649 cars produced in 1964, 3020 in 1965, and 1781 in 1966, which comes to 6450, all Tiger Is. The last Tiger I was assembled on 9 December 1966. Then there were 633 Tiger IIs produced in 1967, giving us a grand total of 7083. I'll go through and make sure we're consistent. Eric Corbett 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC). The Jensen logs indicate that the Tiger I own (B382002705) was made on December 30, 1966. Do you suppose that Jensen made that up? By the way, that whole thread between you and Dennis there is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You start out being unsure, admit to guesswork and a lack of verifiability of any of the information, and by the end of it you're slapping each other on the back because you've "solved" things although through it all you note that you're making assumptions and approximations. On the other hand, Norm Miller's book (do you have a copy, or have you ever seen/read it?) provides a car-by-car account, introduces the African CKD Tigers, and moreover provides cross-check comments on every entry in the Jensen ledgers to note potential conflict or errors. TheoSmit ( talk) 18:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Production | Serial Numbers | Production Dates | Total | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
1964 Mk1 production | B9470001 to B9471649 | 64/4/07 to 65/8/24 | 1649 | Total 1964 production 1649 |
1965 Mk1 production | B9471650 to B9473762 | 64/4/07 to 65/8/24 | 2113 | Total Mk1 production 3762 |
1965 Mk1A production | B382000001 to B38200908 | 65/8/09 to 65/12/31 | 908 | Total 1965 production 3021 |
1966 Mk1A production | B382000909 to B382002706 | 66/1/01 to 66/12/09 | 1798 | Taylor calculates this range as 1797. Total Mk1A production 2706 |
1966 Mk2 Production | B382100100 to B382100129 | 66/12/23 to 67/6/27 | 30 | Total 1966 production 1828 |
1967 Mk2 Production | B382100130 to B382100633 | 66/12/23 to 67/6/27 | 504 | Taylor calculates this range as 503... |
Total | 7002 | Taylor somehow gets to 7067, table notes 572 Mk2's sold even though only 534 were built. |
The reason I'm laying it out like this is so that we can see where the similarities are to other authors and where the differences are. Taylor has made a fairly huge consistency error in his own table. He's broken out the yearly build by serial number and date range, then on the right he notes sales figures. For the mk1 and Mk1A, the sales figures are one or two cars less than the total production - that can happen for any number of reasons. But for the Mk2, the sales figure is 38 greater than the number he reports as having been built.
Compared to Robson, the 1964 production agrees, the 1965 production is off by 1 (although Taylor notes 1965 sales are 3020), 1966 production is off by 17 Mk1's and 30 mk2's, and the remainder is off due to the conflict between the assumed start numbering of Mk2 production. Compared to Norm's book, Taylor does not include the prototypes for each series, omits B9473767, and doesn't list the South African Tigers probably because they were unknown or unreported at that point. Looking through the production register in Norm's book shows that 17 Mk1A's were built after December 9 (when Mk2 production started), and I suggest this explains the 1966 Mk1A production discrepancy between Taylor's total and Robson's.
I did also find in the "Sunbeam Tiger and Alpine Gold Portfolio" compiled by R.M.Clarke, two references to the 571 number... on page 171 and 182 (the Practical Classics article reprint and the Classic and Sportscar article reprint). However, both of those articles also have incorrect Mk1/Mk1A production breakdowns and no further detail, so I don't think they have merit.
The point of all this, first off, is that one can get different numbers by choosing to omit prototypes (that would account for about 11 Tigers from Norm's 7085 number) or due to the fact that the 72 or 73 South African Tigers remained unknown to most Tiger researchers until the 1980's (after Taylor's book and Carroll's book went to print) and it appears that Robson also hasn't included them anywhere. So, if any "definitive" total could be calculated, it should be accompanied by a note saying what was included, what was deliberately left out, and which parts are controversial. Because of the rather unique history of the Tiger and its production method(s), the total number of cars is significant to the article and my opinion is it deserves more detail in the article than it currently has.
Last thing on the Mk2 production: As you may know, when the bodies were built at Pressed Steel, they got a chassis tag that is separate from the VIN plate, but it's screwed to the scuttle just rearward of the VIN plate and along the edge of the panel. Alpines got plates with the ID "SALxxxxxx" where the xxxxxx was a six-digit number; Tigers got plates with the ID "JALxxxxxx". Presumably this indicated the subsequent assembly location: Sunbeam (for Alpines) and Jensen (for Tigers). The numbers were sequential in the order that the bodies were built; but (at least for Tigers) there is not an exact linear correspondence between the JAL numbers and the VIN serial numbers because the body order frequently got mixed up in shipping. For the Mk1A Tigers the range is JAL660000 to JAL662705; For the Mk2 Tigers, the number range is reported (in Norm's book, from the Jensen ledgers) to start with JAL70000; JAL70001 corresponds to B382100101 and JAL700533 is assigned to B382100632 (JAL700532 goes with B382100633). There are no body numbers in the log higher than JAL700533. This would support the position that the number range B382100003 to B382100099 is vacant and was never built, giving 2 pre-production and 534 production Mk2s. TheoSmit ( talk) 04:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I have found that doing what Wiki suggests can can get some people VERY excited.
And it appears to be a vise and virtue of Wiki.
I congratulate ALL who have assisted with the effort to bring this page to FA status.
However, As Wiki has predicted, most text can be improved.
It's time to bring FA to the next level.
Spmdr ( talk) 13:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"The Sunbeam Tiger was a development of the Sunbeam Alpine introduced by the British manufacturer Rootes in 1953."Do you dispute that the Alpine was introduced in 1953? Where does the article say that the Tiger has anything in common with the 1953 Alpine engineering wise? In fact it makes it very clear later on that the Tiger was based on the Alpine IV, itself a redesign of the 1953 Alpine. But no doubt we could make that clearer if that's what you're upset about. Eric Corbett 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
""The Sunbeam Tiger was a development of the Sunbeam Alpine, introduced by the British manufacturer Rootes in 1953."It is true that the "Mark" Alpine was introduced in 1953; but it was a development of the Talbot coupe. It is not true that the Tiger was developed from that Alpine. The Tiger was a development of the totally redesigned "Series" Alpine that was introduced in 1958 and in production from 1959 to 1968. I'm not trying to make stuff up - just being accurate in the details. TheoSmit ( talk) 20:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"The kerb weight of the car increased from the 2,220 lb (1,010 kg) of the standard Alpine to 2,653 lb (1,203 kg)."Eric Corbett 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the year of the Alpine, I direct eyes to Carroll (1988) ISBN 910390-26-6 page 9. Also in TIGER the making of a Sports Car Mike Taylor (1979) ISBN 0 85614 052 X, page 19. And get a load of this title: Sunbeam Alpine & Tiger 1959-1967 R.M. Clarke Brooklands Books ISBN 0 906 589 576, I'll look through for page numbers if anyone would like me to.
Spmdr ( talk) 00:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
We are trying to figure out how to bring some real-life relevance to this page within the guidelines of Wikipedia. It would be helpful, if you were to try to think of ways that we can use original source information to support or discredit the WP:RS "proper" sources, because as you can see, comparing the "proper" sources against each other directly gives you no inkling as to whether or not their research was actually any good. Way back when, everybody said the world was flat... because all the books (except for a couple of obscure ones) said the world was flat... TheoSmit ( talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Eric, I looked up the details on the Mk2 survivors as of 1993 as compiled by Norm Miller and George Fallehy. Out of the 536 Mk2 Tigers listed in the Jensen ledgers (counting the pilot production units), 264 were 'known' to the registry in that they had a specific owner listed against the car, or they were listed as 'Junked', indicating that that car was known to have been dismantled or destroyed. In the list of 534 from B382100100 to B382100533, the largest sequential gap of 'unknown' Tigers was eight. With this information, it seems extremely unlikely that a further 98 cars all in serial number sequence had never been seen.
I'd like to propose the following text below to lead out the "Versions" section:
I'm open to suggestions... On page 56 of Bill Carroll's book he talks about Fallehy getting a report of a B948xxxx Tiger. At the time they had no idea what it was... as I re-read all this stuff I see that many of the authors had hints that there were interesting things behind all the production data, but didn't dig down to the bottom of the story. TheoSmit ( talk) 05:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article, for the most part, display images of "stock" Tigers? I.e., without chrome headlight rings, incorrect steering wheels, aftermarket road wheels, etc? Pragmath ( talk) 20:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The date of introduction of the Alpine was recently changed (by user Pragmath) from 1953 to 1959. As punctuated, the original date of 1953 would appear to be correct. I presume the change to 1959 was intended to indicate that the Tiger was developed from the Alpine Series I, introduced in 1959). Though this could be treated as a matter of punctuation (a comma being used before a supplementary explanation, with no comma before restricting or defining information), I think the sentence should perhaps be reworded to clarify exactly what is meant (possibly including both dates), preferably by someone with access to the cited source. -- Boson ( talk) 12:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)(Punctuation fixed -- Boson ( talk) 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sunbeam Tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—
InternetArchiveBot (
Report bug)
19:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).