triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Triumph mechanical drawings?

To: "John Macartney" <jonmac@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Triumph mechanical drawings?
From: "Rick Barnard" <rstirb@townisp.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 18:06:10 -0500
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
John,
        Hehe.......perhaps I should define my use of the word "old".  
Let's say, before the widespread use of CAD systems, with which all 
mechanical drawings look pretty much the same.  A modern drafter 
still has to know how to graphically communicate a design, which is 
no small task.  But, in the "old" days, the best "draughtsman" not only 
could "speak" the language of drafting, but had in their hand the skill of 
an artist.  Many took great pride in their linework and lettering.
        I understand what you say regarding the liability of publishing 
some of these old prints.  I would love to visit Gaydon someday, and 
view some of those old microfilms.  I'm sure I could find a nice 
subassembly drawing.  This print would lack the necessary dimensions 
for fabrication, but show the assembly of a piston, wrist pin and 
connecting rod, for example.  That would look nice on my office wall.  
Put a legal disclaimer in the corner.  No problem.
        Thanks for the reply.
        30 million drawings?  Oh, boy.  My eyes are going blurry just 
thinking about it.
                Regards,
                                Rick

On 11 Mar 2001, at 10:06, John Macartney wrote:

> Stroll about, sprout - some of those "old draughtsmen" are  younger
> than me - and I ain't old yet <g> Verging towards maturity perhaps,
> but not "old" in the true sense of the word.
> 
> The principal reason why few if any drawings have made it to the
> public domain is that of public liability. There is no reason for not
> making a drawing available for framing and visual enjoyment. There is
> every reason for witholding them on the grounds of contingent
> liability that someone would use that drawing and the information it
> contains, to make the component and later selling it/them for profit.
> The profit angle is not the focus, the material used and the methods
> employed most certainly are. Making the distinction between 'something
> for  enjoyment by framing' and 'the opportunity for a quick buck
> followed by a possible death or injury and later litigation' is the
> difficult bit. This is why archivists err on the side of safety and
> only allow enthusiasts to look at the drawing but not photograph it or
> photocopy it. They can study the drawing  and make notes from it and
> make their own example in their own hand - but a copy or facsimile?
> No.
> 
> Next time you're passing Gaydon, make a prior arrangement of the
> actual part number(s)  you want to study. If we've got it among the 30
> odd million drawings from 12 manufacturers (mostly on microfilm), I
> don't see any real reason why you shouldn't study it.
> 
> Jonmac

///
///  triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>