| Author | Message | ||
     Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 285 Registered: 12-2004 |
Our newly elected Federal President and Victorian Past President, Eric Henderson turned up today at Barwon Park in the latest addition to his family. A 1976 Phantom V1 (PRH4840) My personal opinion is that the H.J. Mulliner/Park Ward Bodied Phantom V's and V1's are the most beautiful motorcars ever made. Just a bit of trivia. the easiest way to tell the difference between a Phantom V and a Phantom V1 are two things. The most noticeable difference is that the PV has Coach Doors (Suicide Doors) whereas the PV1 has the more modern rear opening doors. The other difference is that the PV1 has an air intake grille on the scuttle under the windscreen.    | ||
| Bill Coburn Moderator Username: bill_coburn Post Number: 665 Registered: 4-2003 |
Careful Robert. Where coachbulding is concerned it is my experience that there are no rules only exceptions! The PVI in my balliwick is a front opening rear door version as I think are the ones in WA and Q! The Queen's new Bentleys have forward opening rear doors as of course does the Phantom but they apparently have interlocks to prevent egress whilst moving. | ||
| bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 80.3.64.11 |
Are the wheel arch trims original. The Royal Phantoms are not so attired. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 286 Registered: 12-2004 |
Bill, You are of course correct in stating about the exceptions and I should have pointed out that I was generalising. Of course, a Phantom is never standard and indeed as you state, the current Phantom has coach doors also. Bob, The wheel trims are original and that strengthens Bill's point about exceptions. The original owner probably ordered them. It was apparently sold new to a rich Arab (show me a poor one) in London. It then passed onto a wealthy Briton. It then came to Melbourne in the early '80's and was used by The Shop of Shops in Figgins Diorama in Bourke Street to transport favoured customers. It then passed into the hands of Lady Fairfax and eventually went to the Fox Museum (I believe), and was recently traded by Lindsay Fox when he took delivery of the EWB Phantom that was on display at the Melbourne Motor Show. | ||
| Mark Herbstreit Experienced User Username: mark_herbstreit Post Number: 37 Registered: 5-2005 |
The motto of two of our founding members 'never say never and never say always!' The front hinged doors began to appear in 1972 to satisfy European safty legislation. The stainless sill embelishers started to appear around the same time. I think they lower the car and make it look sleeker. See Patricks post 'Wow what a colour' for one with suicide rear doors. The 1976 car is interesting to look at. Bits of Cloud, 6230cc engine with Shadow heads, four speed auto and servo brakes. Shadow, Shadow II and Cloud facia details. Park Ward Continental style tail lights, Shadow style front fog lights. | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 288 Registered: 12-2004 |
Don't you ever go to sleep either Mark? Maybe the car was designed by Heinz  By the way Mark, that was a very interesting publication you showed me at Barwon Park yesterday. Perhaps you would care to share some of its content with our Forum Members? | ||
| Mark Herbstreit Experienced User Username: mark_herbstreit Post Number: 38 Registered: 5-2005 |
Its past my bedtime but you people keep giving me projects to do! I was just about to start looking up old editions of Praeclarum for the Merry-go-round info. I think it's in there somewhere, about five years ago? Maybe you could start looking and I'll get an early night! If I get time I will put some Darwin pictures up in the appropriate section. | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 289 Registered: 12-2004 |
I'd look, but I was out of the club during that time so I guess you'll have to stay up all night. Sorry mate.  | ||
| John Shostrom Experienced User Username: silvawraith2 Post Number: 42 Registered: 4-2005 |
Robert, thanks for sharing those pictures with us. I am particularly fond of Phantoms V and VI, and over the years have noticed some interesting bits about the VI. As Mark mentioned, front-hinged rear doors did indeed appear around 1972 to satisfy safety issues. Stainless steel wheelarch finishers and sill moulding also appeared around that time. Still later, we can even see thicker polished wheelarch finishers, and some cars also had a stainless clas centre post. Very late in production, some cars even got Shadow/Corniche style headlamp fairings! One thing I have noticed, apart from the scuttle ventilation grille, is that the VI had a Silver Shadow standard saloon bootlid handle. Ah, for what all that is worth, but then, apart from other enthusiasts like yourself, who could I tell all this to? Again, thanks for the pics! Regards, John (Hong Kong) PS: There are quite few Phantom VI here, from early to late '80s with the Shadow high-pressure hydraulics and 6.75 litre engine. | ||
| Bill Coburn Moderator Username: bill_coburn Post Number: 668 Registered: 4-2003 |
John Could you lay your hands on any tech info on the high pressure brake systems on the later Phantoms. I gather they were forced into the designs by the demise of the Hydramatic which killed the brake servo but they did not go to brake rotors I am told but used the drums and shoes but operated by accumulators. The mind boggles? | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1023 Registered: 4-2003 |
This brand new Phantom popped up at the RREC Annual Rally last weekend. It is the result of customising by P & A Wood, and it graced their stand. If I can source some fuller pictures I shall post them too. The work involved extensive reshaping of the front guards, and the rest you can see. Note the contour of the guards: very SZ ! Any comments ?  | ||
| Mark Herbstreit Experienced User Username: mark_herbstreit Post Number: 39 Registered: 5-2005 |
For Richard. That is 1000 times better and how it should have looked right from the start. A real bumper and lights in the right spot. For Bill. Apparently the power system was unsuitable for piping direct to the brake cylinders so special rams worked from the Shadow hydraulics to operate the twin master cylinders of the old system. This also had the benefit of eliminating servo lag. The brake drums were retained. | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 290 Registered: 12-2004 |
Apparently it was customised using an accident damaged Phantom and Bentley arnage Headlamps were used (see link to Gumball forum) http://forums.gumball3000.com/viewtopic.php?t=1071&sid=09d3a0440a2201a87fdecb70d3dc4c5b I have emailed P & A Wood to see if they have more photos and I will post them up here and to Praeclarum if I get them | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1024 Registered: 4-2003 |
And here is a shot, from a similar perspective, of a regular Phantom as a comparison. Those with a sharp eye will notice that this picture is mirrored:  | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 291 Registered: 12-2004 |
I agree entirely with Mark on the front end treatment and it reinforces my point about grille design as well (Thank you John for your comments). Perhaps P & A Wood can do something with the Bentley Continental GT and Flying Spur to reinstate a proper Bentley grille and eradicate the eyesores that they both have to suffer now. | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 292 Registered: 12-2004 |
I received a very pleasant email back from Mr. Paul Wood regarding the GainesWood Phantom, which was altered at the request of one of their customers, Mr Gaines-Cooper.The front end treatment gives the car a slightly sporty appearance I think and it definitely improves the overall style. The horizontal slats above the front bumper are the indicators by the way.   | ||
| bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 80.3.64.11 |
I think the front end of the Phantom looks much better and BMW should have a good look. AM I reading this right the BMW has drum rear brakes. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 293 Registered: 12-2004 |
Hi Bob, The drum brakes referred to by Mark were on the Phantom V1 and not the latest Phantom which are all discs. One thing I'm not sure of though and perhaps someone can tell us. Does the 'new' Phantom (not to be confused with New Phantom of the '20s) run brakes on mineral oil or has it reverted back to brake fluid? Pity they don't call this model the Phantom V11 to avoid confusion. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1025 Registered: 4-2003 |
Note that the car crashed during the Gumball 3000 on the Serbian leg. See the skull and crossbones flags on the flagstaffs. A new one replaced it, waiting in Salt Lake City when the other cars arrived there. It's amazing what a quality restorer can achieve !   | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 295 Registered: 12-2004 |
Oh dear! It must be a real Rolls-Royce. I notice there is oil on the ground underneath the front.  I thought the replacement car was waiting for them in Thailand or did I read it wrong? | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1026 Registered: 4-2003 |
Quite correct: Bangkok. Sorry Robert. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1027 Registered: 4-2003 |
Groan. This was posted on the US site. What a shame: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I understand the traditionalists concerns about the look of the Phantom, but I would like point out a few things about why a factory Phantom can never look like that. As a professional car designer, perhaps I can shed some light on the situation. The location of headlamps is dictated by regulations in Europe and the US. For the most part, Asia follows the EU regulations. There is a federal law that controls the maximum height of headlamps. The Phantom's lower round lamp (the headlamp) is within that zone. The upper rectangular lamp is NOT. Many people are not aware that the rectangular unit is not a headlamp. It is what is commonly referred to as a running light. The job of an industrial designer is to make the best aesthetic choices within the engineering and legislative constraints. When you begin to understand the height of the Phantom's powertrain package and factor in the 100 mm (four inches) clearance to the engine now required by EU pedestrian safety regs, you can understand why the hood is so high. Combine that with the legal requirements of the headlamp location and you have a design challenge. So while many of you may really like the look of the aftermarket solution, it is not at all a workable solution for a production car and, in fact, will cause glare issues for oncoming drivers. | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 296 Registered: 12-2004 |
Groan indeed Richard. Probably because most modern car designs these days suffer from ‘Duck’s Disease’ (Arse too close to the ground), hence the glare factor. Cars prior to the fifties were often as tall as the Phantom and had they stayed that way, it wouldn’t be a problem which begs the question, why do SUV’s get exempted from this rule? | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 297 Registered: 12-2004 |
From a company design perspective, there is a solution. The two round lights at the top could be configured as running lights and the actual headlamps could be placed in their original position but smaller so as to appear as driving lights.This is all speculation of course as I'm certain that none of this would ever take place anyway. | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 604 Registered: 4-2003 |
Here is a modified photo of the Bentley Continental GT entry in the Gumball 3000. Just goes to show a "Bentley Boy" NEVER lets a chance go by!! [with apologies to Bob Hudson's "Newcastle Song" from over 3 decades ago].  (Message edited by david_gore on June 24, 2006) | ||
| John Shostrom Experienced User Username: silvawraith2 Post Number: 43 Registered: 4-2005 |
Gentlemen: This is indeed a lively discussion, and I must say that the P&A Wood effort does look handsome. In my opinion, quite an improvement on the normal offering. The bumper is terrific, whereas that on the Phantom looks like a valance -- with the bumper missing. As to the headlamp height regulations, and as BMW made such a big deal on being influenced by past Rolls-Royce, especially the Silver Clouds, I wonder how it would have looked had BMW investigated the headlamp arrangement on James Young Phantom Vs and Silver Cloud III Continentals. JY always set their headlamps lower than those on, say, the HJ Mulliner Flying Spur designs. Ah well! I might just be tempted to get out pencil and sketchbook and see what I come up with. Now ... any ideas on how to improve the rear of the car? And those awful side marker lights? Best regards to all. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1028 Registered: 4-2003 |
Now, David, would that 10 foot tall Hell's Angel fit in a Conti GT ? Let's hope for a break in the traffic. Bob Hudson's Hell's Angel may be far more comfortable in a Phantom with its legroom than in a rakish Continental GT don't you think ? Seriously, for some fun photos, the Gumball site is worth a visit ! | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 298 Registered: 12-2004 |
It's a bit tricky to navigate but well worth the effort. Here 'tis www.gumball3000.com | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1029 Registered: 4-2003 |
To put the SUV vs Car issue into perspective: why does anything go on an SUV, while a P&AW Phantom is illegal ? What a swizz !  | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1030 Registered: 4-2003 |
Just for fun, here is the Australian Design Rule for headlamps. I assume that the standards in many other countries are similar, as the standards generally try to follow international standards. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Australian Design Rules, 78—How headlights are to be fitted (1) The centres of low-beam headlights fitted as a pair on a motor vehicle with 4 or more wheels must be at least 600 millimetres apart. (2) However, subrule (1) does not apply to a motor vehicle built before 1970 if the centres of its low-beam headlights: (a) were under 600 millimetres apart when the vehicle was built; and (b) are not nearer than they were when the vehicle was built. (3) Each low-beam headlight of a pair on a motor trike (except a moped) with 2 front wheels must not be over 400 millimetres from the nearer side of the vehicle. (4) The centre of a low-beam headlight fitted to a motor vehicle built after June 1953 must be: (a) at least 500 millimetres above ground level; and (b) not over 1.4 metres above ground level. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Given that 1.4 metres are 55 inches, it seems that the P&A Wood Phantom would surely be OK at least under this regime. | ||
| Mark Herbstreit Experienced User Username: mark_herbstreit Post Number: 40 Registered: 5-2005 |
Here is a picture of an ugly car  and here is one they got right  Surely its not hard to see what works and what doesn't. I am surprised that cars such as the Au Falcon (top) make it into production. I can only imagine the number of committe meetings full of yes men the design got through without someone putting their hand up and asking a few questions. A heard a story of the unvailing of the AU Falcon at a car show, the opposition Holden designers cheered with joy because they immediately saw what an ugly dog the AU was. Dont get me wrong, I like the profile of the new Phantom and from all accounts it is a fantastic car. But certain elements of the front just don't look right. The rear tailights also dont seem to fit the size of the car and the rear parking sensors look like bolt holes for something that was left off. The mascot is too small (I bet they blame that on some regulation as well) The Gaineswood Phantom has adressed some of these issues, even wearing what looks like a Shadow or Spirit sized mascot. | ||
| bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: 80.3.64.11 |
The regulations ruined the look of MGB. The bumpers were to low and had no impact resistance. Solution was to raise the car by 2 inches and make the bumpers from old car tyres. I don't think the modified Phanton 7 falls foul of any regulations. I once removed the fog lamps from my Shadow 1 and the cleaner look ( no airvents --1974 model SRH 17768) To me looked better. I refitted them when some fog arrived only to be disappointed by the Fogs lamps effectiveness --- dead glow worms worked better. I will take them off when I get round to it. One of things I like about the Shadow is that Rolls-Royce rely on the presence of the car rather than lots of badges explaining to onlookers what the car is. My Cherokee Jeep has badges and decals explaining to all that it is a 4x4 I thought that would be obvious and besides I know what the vehicle is why does anybody else need to know. With Rolls-Royce it is a R-R and that is enough said. The other thing I like is that the switches are marked in plain English - I dislike the universal hiroglifics ( spelling) Under bonnet hidden from view is a plate that says Silver Shadow --Thats proper street cred. Where I live there is a thriving modified car sceane ( hatchbacks with tuned engines 18 inch low profiles and 300 bhp is typical) and in general the lads approve of my Shadow (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Robert Wort Grand Master Username: robert_wort Post Number: 304 Registered: 12-2004 |
Here's something to watch and enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKTkl4EYgUc |
