Dreadful.

Full of the usual misconceptions and myths, and appearing to contain large sections lifted almost verbatim from other writings on the subject.

The thought that 99.999% of early Z enthusiasts will lap it up, call it delicious and ask for second helpings is heartbreaking.

And this in the week when 'Octane' magazine served up re-heated version of the abysmal 'Moto-Man' online "interview" with Yoshihiko Matsuo and Randy Rodriguez, too.

Alan T.

Alan, I enjoy your knowledge and first hand experience but your delivery could use some fine tuning.

Edited July 30, 201113 yr by Blue

Trying to turn the focus onto me is to miss the point. And it lets that crap autospeed.com article off the hook too.

No, I am not turning things around. You are very intelligent and experienced and knowledgeable. In fact, when I see that you post something, I eagerly read it and usually learn a lot. I also wish you would post more and share more of your knowledge. My comment was only because of your negative tone in your response.

Both you and I and hopefully most know that absolute truth and accuracy is nearly an unattainable ideal so most articles and advice online can never stand the test of such high standards.

Alan, I enjoy your knowledge and first hand experience but your delivery could use some fine tuning.

Alan grows on you over time...

Hey Alan, great to hear from you. How are things in Britain these days? You know the problem with bad information is that once it becomes "accepted wisdom" it just will not go away. Largely I fear that is because most people just don't care...

Maybe we all should run our stories past Allan before we submit them to the forum .... yeh right . Allan you are an obnoxious person with a self absorbed attitude to all things Zed , what if every time you posted someone was to rebuke you with the rude and tactless manner in which you presribe to . Get a grip of yourself this is all

about fun and sharing and not finding the holy grail just a motor car with which we all have our own different interests in , eat some humble (pork)pie for once.

I can understand the frustration that Alan and others feel about the perpetuation and promotion of incorrect or unbalanced information with regard to the history of the development of the Zed car. Other threads in this forum have gone to great lengths to accurately define and verify the circumstances surrounding the origin of the Zed and continue to do so.

However, despite the investigation and publication of more reliable and accurate information on these matters, "modern" articles seem to continue to rely an old information from 40 years ago. This Australian article from 2008? barely preceded the publication of an Australian book discussed on http://www.viczcar.com/forum/index.php/topic,8390.msg83880.html#msg83880 - both continued with the delivery of the Goertz myth.

Any search of threads in this and other forums would reveal that Alan has been open with his information, and supportive of accurate statements supported by references or sources for verification. He welcomes any challenge to his opinions and is willing to discuss and support or qualify any statement he makes. He is also quick to support others in their investigations. I do not think he needs to be excused for anything here but if there is a perceived tone of frustration in his response I can certainly understand why.

Maybe we should scrutinise this article a little more critically and look at whether or not the comments that have been made are valid.

Maybe we all should run our stories past Allan before we submit them to the forum .... yeh right . Allan you are an obnoxious person with a self absorbed attitude to all things Zed , what if every time you posted someone was to rebuke you with the rude and tactless manner in which you presribe to . Get a grip of yourself this is all

about fun and sharing and not finding the holy grail just a motor car with which we all have our own different interests in , eat some humble (pork)pie for once.

'carrott',

I don't know much - if indeed anything at all - about you ( you don't even tell us your location ), but you giving me the title of "Mr Knowledge" leaves me with a fairly high mountain to climb. I'm ALWAYS aiming to obtain knowledge wherever and whenever I can. It pains me to see - once again - so many myths and misconceptions about these cars and the story around them being perpetuated, and I WILL try to do something about it.

If you on the other hand don't want to try to do anything about it, so be it. But do me one favour, please? At the very least, do me the honour of spelling my name correctly? It was spelled correctly at the bottom of my first post on this thread, and I don't think it should be too much bother for you to copy it.

But on the subject of the AUTOSPEED.com article that Blue liniked to, can I try to convince you that it's not fit for purpose? It's a fairly brief article, so I reckon if we could find two or three mistakes in it we could safely say that it was flawed. If five or six, then even more so. How about TEN? It would start to be getting silly, wouldn't it? How about more? Twelve, 'lucky' thirteen? More? Starting to sound like garbage now. Want me to go further? You seem to think there's nothing wrong with it.

Not only that, but that page is bombarding me with advertisements and inviting me to make a financial 'contribution' into the bargain...

Sorry, but I think it's a very poor article and I feel justified in making that point on this thread - which would otherwise recommend it. This is a forum dedicated to the cars in question, after all.

Alan T.