HS30-H

Excellent! I've just tested this out and I think it works really well. Thank you, Mike. Alan T.

That's a lovely site. Very nice indeed. But the cheeky sod has lifted some photos from my gallery. Check out the Z432 section. At least two of the photos were taken from this site, but he's chopped of the classiczcars.com watermark. :cheeky: Alan T.

Hi Andrew, The can I bought has the brand name "CONCEPT Tar & Glue Remover" from Concept Chemicals and Coatings Ltd: Concept Chemicals You should be able to get hold of it either direct from them or from a more local supplier. Cheers, Alan T.

Hi Mike, That's great new info. Thanks for posting it. Poor Herrmann getting a smack around the head made me chuckle. I bet he *knew* he was in Australia after that ....... Mind you, he was no slouch as a driver. His 'excuse' of fuel problems may well have been true; that car was running on the new Nissan electronically controlled injection system, which was still suffering from niggles and glitches under rally conditions. This could well have been an intermittent problem, making Herrmann look bad when Bonhomme took the car out with no reported problems. He probably never even knew Leighton was behind him. Most of his rear view mirror would have been filled with a pair of spare wheels and the intercom box! Do you have a date for the event? How long before the Southern Cross was it? I thought it took place after the Southern Cross, not before ( ? ). Cheers, Alan T. Edit: Ah, I see what you mean - a fact-finder before the '73 Southern Cross, rather than before the '72 Southern Cross. I think it would be more likely that - with the car available after the '72 'Cross, Datsun Australia Pty willing ( and happy for publicity / eager to assist in servicing duties and logistics ) and Nissan's competition dept. happy to loan the car - that it was done as a one-off. This kind of thing happened quite often in other countries. Mehta and Fall in particular were often loaned cars to do smaller events with. That's how a lot of them got written off :stupid:

Carl, I already have - and continue to - chase up people or organisations that use images of mine without my permission. In fact, I'm currently waiting for a reply from a member of this site who I contacted just before this thread started. Frankly, I don't really expect an answer or a favourable result - but that will not stop me from making the point to him. You seem to be focusing mainly on complaining about the 'legalese' part of this thread, but this is only one aspect of the subject. Nevertheless, the legal issues are an important factor when it comes to confronting people who think they can walk off with something that belongs - at least morally - to this site. In my opinion, if you let it go then it can be the start of a slipperly slope. Pretty soon the identities of members and the identity of the site itself could be at risk. You might think that an exaggeration at this point in time, but - presumably - you close your windows and lock your front door when you leave your home just like I do. We ought to be vigilant here too. In the case of this thread, the misunderstanding / dispute was between two sensible and polite members of the club, and is now resolved. It is a case that we can all learn from and point to as reference in the future. Other cases are not so simple - like when somebody takes photos from here and posts them on another site as their own - and I wish they were as easy to solve. Discussing this issue is - I think - relevant to this site and our participation / membership of it. If that is not "on topic" then I don't know what is. I think it was reassuring to see Mike's statement regarding the site copyright, and this allows people like myself - who are chasing up people behind the scenes - to act with the knowledge that taking these images - and anything else - from the site is frowned on by the management / owner of the site, and by ( many / some of? ) the members of the site. Alan T.

Hi Andrew, ARMOR ALL! Seriously though, I had similarly old and ( seemingly ) dry vinyl on my current project car interior. The reverse side was covered in much too much old glue, so I set to with a naptha-based ( at least it smells like naptha ) Tar & Glue remover recommended by my local auto paint supplies shop.... Strangely, I found that this had the effect of making the vinyl come up like new on both sides. It became much more supple, much more black than it was before, and the stuff took off most of the glue too. I was surprised. Obviously this is a cleaner, so you would expect it to take more out of the vinyl than to put anything 'back in', but it does seem fairly oily and my paint supply guy says that it will not hurt. The vinyl still looks great, even several months after cleaning, and has not dried up again.

Moyest, I don't know about anybody else, but I'm serious. Why should I just shrug and let people misappropriate images I made and posted to this site? The whole point of posting them to this site is so that they can be enjoyed by other like-minded people ( both members and visitors to this site ), but that does not mean that people should think its a free-for-all for them to take and use what they want and how they want. I know that all is now sweetness and light between yourself and RB30-ZED, but I still don't understand why you copied photos from his gallery and put them in your own. Surely this is a great recipe for confusion and misunderstanding, let alone anything else? Exactly the same thing happened to me, and the member that re-posted the photos didn't seem to get the irony of the situation. All the legal talk is - of course - academic if nobody wants to follow it through. However, I think there is the matter of politeness and common sense to take into account too. Surely anybody who downloads photos from websites realises that there will likely be issues with 're-publishing' them? Whenever I see any of my own photos being used without permission, I usually - at the very least - try to make the point to the person or site involved. Sometimes it has the desired effect and sometimes it does not, but I don't see why I would be best advised ( as some people seem to be saying ) to sit back and treat it as inevitable, and quit "whining"........ And moyest, I really don't understand your final comment. What is "evil" about discussing an issue like this? I don't get it. As far as I can see, protecting the site and its contents is a subject worth discussion( yes - even from its own members, as there are members here who have taken images of mine and are still using them on their own private websites ). If you did not get the required answers to questions you posted in the "HELP" or "ENGINE" sections, then maybe you would like to post them again or just ask them in a different way on the same thread? I don't see this as an issue of 'good' or 'evil'. I think the members of this site are very helpful and will offer advice or data if they think it is relevant and / or of possible help. Alan T.

You don't seem to have noticed ( or remembered ) that you were giving flack to people for discussing the subject in the first place. Didn't you say this was "off topic"?

Good. Thanks for clarifying that. Cheers, Alan T.

Mike, Any chance of getting your opinion on the subject of the site copyright on the pictures in the classiczcars.com Gallery? Your opinion - as owner of this site - on pictures being lifted from here, and posted on other sites, is of particular interest to me. Thanks, Alan T.

So, if you were aiming the comment at anybody / everybody participating in the thread - then I should not take offence? Run that by me again........ In the light of all the "STOP WHINING" comments ( not to mention the dedicated avatars and "knock it off or else" PM's ) recently, I find it hard not to take offence. The people making these comments ( notice the non-specific ) don't seem to be aware of the irony of they themselves being whiners who are whining about whiners whining. Carl, do me a favour and stop whining about people bringing up issues that ( I think ) need a little discussion. Go back to the first post on this thread and try to imagine the long-term benefit to this site of bringing a subject like this to attention. If nobody cares about the subject then it will die a natural death. If it gets a few replies ( on topic - its you that's taking it OFF topic ) then that shows the heart of the site is still beating. Oh yeah, I forgot - that's just "In My Humble Opinion"..... You will allow me my opinion, won't you? Please? Pretty please?

Yes Carl, I'm just WHINING. I don't know why I bother posting on this site anymore.

"Fair Use" / "Fair Dealing" for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review ( as permitted under the terms of most Copyright law ) is usually seen as covering this type of use. It is a grey area, all the same. Where we draw the line is a little hard to say, but keeping it within the realms of politeness and respect is probably the best foot to start off on. "Hello, my name is Michael, and I have a downloading confession to make...." I think the intentions of your work are clear ( 'pro bono' = for the common good ) and I can't imagine anyone taking exception to it. But if they do, and the image you used is theirs, then they would be 'in the right'. That's the way I would see it anyway. It's the "up yours" attitude of some people that rubs me up the wrong way. I asked one guy on another site last year to stop using my photos and pretending they were his, and he told me where to get off. He didn't see it from my point of view at all. There's a lot of it about........ :dead: Alan T.

That's easy. The photos are yours and you can post them where you like. That's easy too. As long as you are using them for your own reference / enjoyment, then no harm is being seen to be done. You can save what you like to your computer. Like I said, its the next step ( "publishing" them ) that can be a problem. Edit: Exactly, Mr Camouflage! :classic:

That's fine. I accept that this is inevitable, and if somebody wants to download photos and keep them then there is little harm as far as I am concerned. Its the next step that is the problem..... Its like buying a book with photos in it. You can use them for your own enjoyment / reference / study etc - but the moment you reproduce them and display them somewhere else, you are technically infringing copyright. Alan T.

Gav, Might I suggest that if this situation arises, you do what Tod Kaneko thinks is best with regard to his photo, and not what you think is best.......... Alan T.

Take a look at the copyright message at the bottom of this page. Sounds to me as though you and a few other people have not noticed it. "Profit" has nothing to do with it. Either it belongs to you or it does not. If it does not, then you should not use it. End of story. Alan T.

No, you are not being picky. I know exactly how you feel. Happens to me too. I'm currently chasing two members of this site who have taken pics out of my Gallery and are using them on their own websites without permission. It makes things seem even more stupid and pointless when they mis-caption them too.........

Jim, I've found that Kakimoto catalogue. Its a bit difficult to scan effectively as most of the content is spread across double pages. I have also dug up that 330ps 3.1 conversion article from an old Car Boy magazine. Again, it is difficult to scan as its such a big article. Might be better if I put the Car Boy article on a photocopier and send the copies to you by Air Mail. I can send you the original catalogue too, as its probably more fitting for you to have it than me :classic: Drop me a PM with your postal address. Cheers, Alan T.

I definitely agree! I have faced the same dilemma with using my ZG for track days here in the UK. It would be a real shame to smash or damage it. Definitely more cost-effective to tune / repair the 'L-gata' than the S20. And you are probably right - you probably have more torque and horsepower too :classic: Those extra cc's count for a lot. Any idea what diff and what diff ratio the car has? Does it have an LSD? Cheers, Alan T.

Sorry Jim, I forgot to add - that Kanji character over which "Machine Friend" is written is pronounced "Ani". "Ani" is one of the Japanese words for 'brother' ( in a familial sense ). So I would imagine that the previous owner of your car could have been a 'brother' ( member ) of the "Machine Friend" club? But again, don't quote me on it.

Hi Jim, Sorry, I should have explained that 'Romanised' means to put into the Roman alphabet ( A, B, C, etc ). That's the only way I can phoneticise Japanese characters. Even then, its still open to debate as to how best to write Japanese syllables so that they can be pronounced accurately / correctly. For example, your new car is what the Japanese have always described as the "Hakosuka" Skyline ( meaning 'boxy', or 'box shape' ) - but there are varying ways of writing this in our alphabet. If you know the original pronunciation then its easier, but if you don't then it can be harder. Correct pronunciation would be something like "Hacko-ska", but you can't write what it really sounds like in our Roman alphabet. Anyway, that's what I meant by "Romanisation"..... If you see references to "Roman" in Japan, then I think it will almost certainly be in relation to small comic books that became popular in Japan during the 40's, 50's and 60's. In fact, the word "Roman" in French is used for a pulp novel or paperback, and I think this is where it came from in Japanese use. I remember one called "GT-Roman", which was a very popular car-related comic series. Sometimes people call their website or homepage a "Roman" now......... Er, don't quote me on the above! :classic: "Machine Friend" is probably a garage / tuning shop / local club or something like that. Cheers, Alan T.

It was most likely described as "GT-R shiyo" ( my Romanisation ), which would translate in this useage as "GT-R look" or something similar. ie - not a real GT-R. You can see this is used car sales descriptions all the time in Japan. They are not legally allowed to misdescribe a used car as something it is not. Last year a girl here in the UK bought a similarly described car from a Japanese auction ( without realising that "GT-R shiyo" meant that it was not a real GT-R ). It turned out to be - of course - a KGC10, and a total shed into the bargain. Poor girl. It is a KGC10, and it is not a KPGC10. Its quite simple. Sorry to labour the point, but its quite clear what it is ( and what it was ). This kind of car is more common in Japan than many might realise. Some owners go to great expense to make their GT and GT-X bodies look just like GT-Rs. It makes sense to repair / replace a panel with the GT-R spec item if you are making an authentic-looking replica. And this is most definitely a very authentic-looking replica. Very nice indeed. :classic: