Classic Motorsports Mag

[psdenno]

14 hours ago, conedodger said:

What you are describing is reality. There is only one reality. As I said, reality and truth are brothers, but they aren’t twins...

As my wife, the psychologist, points out from time to time, "We all live in our own reality".   Keeping that in mind has helped me to better understand and, sometimes, tolerate some of the folks I've had to deal with over the years.

Dennis

[Patcon]

16 hours ago, conedodger said:

Well, you’re wrong. 

 

A lady hears a disturbance and sees and sees a man run out of a shop. Later, she tells the police that the man was Asian, he had spiked hair and a dragon tattoo on his neck. The police listen but don’t write anything down because the owner of the shop had told them the perpetrator ran out the back. Not the front. Turns out, the Asian man was a customer. Was the lady telling the truth? Of course she was. She believes in what she saw from her perspective. She’d pass a lie detector test too. There are as many truths as there are perspectives. Sometimes they even align with reality. What you are describing is reality. There is only one reality. As I said, reality and truth are brothers, but they aren’t twins...

I don't agree with your assertion, and I was going to write a rebuttal to your post. After having thought about it, I am not going to provide a rebuttal. As I doubt, I will change your mind and you haven't changed mine. It seems like a poor use of time to try. As well as the obvious thread jack it would be. My apologies to @7tooZ for the distraction.

[conedodger]

3 hours ago, Patcon said:

I don't agree with your assertion, and I was going to write a rebuttal to your post. After having thought about it, I am not going to provide a rebuttal. As I doubt, I will change your mind and you haven't changed mine. It seems like a poor use of time to try. As well as the obvious thread jack it would be. My apologies to @7tooZ for the distraction.

I’m really not trying to change your mind. I’m simply supporting Alan’s assertion - “with the caveat that “the truth” can depend on your point of view...”

Pete Brock’s ‘truth’ is that he discovered and solved the problem. I’d guess that he is really firm in his belief that is truth. Reality which is absolute, is that Nissan was already aware and working on it. 

Religion has attributed the meaning of reality to truth. In fact, each of your blind men was describing their truth. It may not be reality, in fact, it isn’t, but each of them believes they have truthfully described an elephant. It is their truth. 

Not trying to be difficult, but this is what my PhD deals with. Alan is right. The truth depends on where you’re standing in many cases...

[gundee]

I did not read where Brock claimed they solved the crankshaft problem. Yes they discovered the issue quickly, and, yes

BRE tried to fix it as there was no answers coming from Japan to their reports.. But BRE did not fix it and does not claim that as I read it.

It was after they received the new revised crankshafts from Japan that BRE became successful on the track. The article says that.

[HS30-H]

4 hours ago, Lumens said:

I did not read where Brock claimed they solved the crankshaft problem. Yes they discovered the issue quickly, and, yes

BRE tried to fix it as there was no answers coming from Japan to their reports.. But BRE did not fix it and does not claim that as I read it.

It was after they received the new revised crankshafts from Japan that BRE became successful on the track. The article says that.

Here's an excerpted paragraph from the Classic Motorsports Magazine article:

Quote

"If ever anyone remarks that racing doesn't improve the breed, BRE's example of discovering an engineering problem on the eve of a new-car announcement, then developing and proving the design of a new production 240Z crankshaft that was immediately incorporated into every new Z-car, must be used to disprove their point."

This theme runs through the whole article. If the BRE team had nothing to do with discovering and diagnosing the crankshaft problem, then "developing and proving the design of a new production 240Z crankshaft", then what was the point of mentioning it so prominently in the article, and why does it contradict the above paragraph? Yes -  we know that racing improves the breed, but Nissan had already encountered the problem and were working on the solution.    

The article byline says "Story By Peter Brock", but my hunch is that it was ghost-written by a Classic Motorsports Magazine journalist. Perhaps a little bit of lost in translation and artistic interpretation going on there?

There's plenty more in the article that's ripe for discussion. Plenty:

Quote

"Since this new coupe was his personal project within Nissan and he'd staked his reputation upon it's success, Katayama resented management's desire to send this highly tuned engine [the S20] into a market it hardly understood. He knew this new coupe would need something with a larger displacement and built at a far lower cost.
The answer came in the layout of the new L-series engines that had been created especially for Katayama's other vision, the 510 sedan. It was a relatively simple engineering task, on paper, to add two cylinders to the engine's design and enlarge displacement to 2400cc." 

First of all, calling the 510 "Katayama's vision" - as though it would not have existed without him - is absurd. Calling the S30 Katayama's "personal project within Nissan" is nonsense, even if Katayama may have believed that himself, but stating "...new L-series engines ... created especially for [the 510]" is not far south of cargo cult-level misapprehension. Hopefully most of us here on classiczcars know the full story of Nissan L-series engines and understand that the 'two cylinders added on to the 510 engine' thing was just the simplest way for Nissan to explain the L24 to a market which had seen the 510 first and had no idea where the L-gata had really come from, but we probably can't expect the average Classic Motorsports Magazine reader to have the same background knowledge. That's a shame.

I could take potshots at this article all day long. There are plenty of legitimate targets, and the nonsense written regarding the "Prince Z 432 engine" (does the article ever correctly identify it as the 'S20'?) is fairly inept if not unexpected, but we also get stuff like this:

Quote

"...the 240Z's new American-market, six-cylinder engines had never been designed for or expected to see competition.  

Nissan's management, including Katayama, was completely unaware that American racing rules required the use of engines and components as delivered in their production cars and sold to the public".    

...which is patently untrue.

First of all, Nissan was completely dedicated to taking the S30-series Z racing and rallying from concept (just as it had been doing with just about every other model it produced...) and had been preparing the way to do that, including developing and homologating the parts with which to do it. Quite apart from what was going on in Japan, a small group from Nissan's works rally team was to be found testing a nascent 240Z rally car on the Monte Carlo Rally route in January 1970, before BRE had even received their first car. And Nissan was PERFECTLY aware of the rules and requirements for sanctioned international competition - including 'production' based racing in the USA - because they had already been participating in such forms of racing since the late 1950s.

The statement is just bizarre...  It convinces me that it must have been ghost-written.   
 

[NVZEE]

There's a detail regarding the crankshaft design that may have had a role in how this saga played out. Perhaps it was the cultural difference that contributed to Nissan acknowledging there was a problem until it became a more public issue?

"Later they began to grasp the reason behind the manufacturer’s silence: It was simply a Japanese custom to not recognize direct criticism, which is how they perceived BRE’s reports. Unbeknownst to them, the problems were being worked on, but Nissan could not admit it as that would have indicated someone had made a mistake–an unacceptable cultural error. The team was learning."

Edited November 26, 2018 by NVZEE

[HS30-H]

4 hours ago, NVZEE said:

There's a detail regarding the crankshaft design that may have had a role in how this saga played out. Perhaps it was the cultural difference that contributed to Nissan acknowledging there was a problem until it became a more public issue?

"Later they began to grasp the reason behind the manufacturer’s silence: It was simply a Japanese custom to not recognize direct criticism, which is how they perceived BRE’s reports. Unbeknownst to them, the problems were being worked on, but Nissan could not admit it as that would have indicated someone had made a mistake–an unacceptable cultural error. The team was learning."

I'm not sure I buy this whole cultural difference thing really. It's a bit of a cliche (we even get the "loss of face" thing dragged up early in the article, as though everybody is happy to look like an idiot except the Japanese) and I see holes in the surrounding story:

The article states that BRE/Brock were sending their reports "to the factory", and hearing nothing in return. I'm confused by the chain of communication that implies. Why didn't they report to Nissan USA and/or Katayama (since they were so close)? Why short circuit the chain? If Japanese customs were so distinct and relevant, cutting out the local office and going straight to "the factory" certainly qualifies as a faux pas. It makes me wonder whether it really happened like that. If it did, what was Katayama doing? And if Katayama was so powerful, how come he never pushed for an answer for BRE sooner? Doesn't really add up.

No, the article is full of holes. The very last paragraph is the Factory Max That Proves The Fact for me. Apparently the 432 "never did go into full production" (huh?) but its engine "...has gone on to be the basis for the one found in the legendary Skyline GT-R....", even though the PGC10 Skyline GT-R was on sale in February 1969, a good 9 months before the debut of the S30-series Z and the PS30 Fairlady Z432/PS30-SB Fairlady Z432-R models.   

[NVZEE]

HS30-H, the only way to get these details resolved is to go to the source. Peter is affable and accessible through his website, bre2.net. List a few of your questions in an email and request clarification. Approach the matter with respect and curiosity rather than confrontation and you might be surprised where it leads. And please share the results!

[HS30-H]

17 hours ago, NVZEE said:

HS30-H, the only way to get these details resolved is to go to the source.

With respect, "the source" in relation to my - largely rhetorical - questions would not necessarily be the one that you are suggesting.

Whilst I have the utmost respect and admiration for Pete Brock, BRE and all they achieved, I tend to look at such stories more from the broader viewpoint. I'm sure a lot of people will be very satisfied and entertained by the article in question, but it just doesn't cut it for me.

The statement "Nissan’s management, including Katayama, was completely unaware that American racing rules required the use of engines and components as delivered in their production cars and sold to the public." is just not credible. I very much doubt that this was said/written by Pete Brock.  

 

[26th-Z]

I would like to weigh in by pointing out that Classic Motorsports magazine is primarily an entertainment periodical and not an historical document by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.  The article, although written by an extremely credible source, is written and presented as a story, an opinion, commentary, and recollection.  For instance, if BRE corresponded directly with Nissan engineering directly, of course Nissan would present the described, interpreted reaction.  Alan's quote above is a perfect illustration.  Peter Brock offers no indication of what Nissan or Mr. Katayama were "aware"; only his opinion or perception, recollection of those days so many years ago.  For that matter, even his own engines were extensively modified; balanced, cc'd, ported, polished, only resembling what was delivered and sold to the public.  Of course Peter saved the day.  He's the greatest.  Just ask him.  A true disciple in the very image of his mentor, Carroll Shelby, who incidentally, snaked the Toyota 2000GT racing program away from Peter.  The reader has to take all of this with a large dose of salt, as they say.  Great entertainment, great story, probably mostly true, but not factually substantiated to qualify as gospel, let alone 'history'.

[NVZEE]

1 hour ago, 26th-Z said:

I would like to weigh in by pointing out that Classic Motorsports magazine is primarily an entertainment periodical and not an historical document by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.  The article, although written by an extremely credible source, is written and presented as a story, an opinion, commentary, and recollection.  ... Great entertainment, great story, probably mostly true, but not factually substantiated to qualify as gospel, let alone 'history'.

Yes and no. In lieu of other information, it “becomes” history.

[conedodger]

52 minutes ago, NVZEE said:

Yes and no. In lieu of other information, it “becomes” history.

Academically speaking, this shouldn’t be true. There are no references. It’s more of an autobiographical piece.

Pete Brock is certainly an authority as he was there and directly involved at the highest level in terms of his team. Unfortunately, because he has outlived the other members of the group of people who were involved, he does get to dictate history so to speak. I met the publisher of this magazine 30 years ago and he is pretty good people. I doubt he would materially change an article. Grammar and spelling yes.