Originally posted by PeterElleray
must be a designers disease - after all the effort, be it mine or usually someone else's, just like to get the facts straight...
Peter, don't get me wrong, I have been called Mr Pedantic, and I am delighted that you have shone some light on the Tyrrell business. The problem is that I was very new to going to circuits and team headquarters, on my own, charged with handling an unfamiliar camera and having to collect enough information to prepare a cutaway - at that time, also a fairly daunting prospect. The result is that I did not always take enough note of exact types, chassis numbers and other detail that I now wish I had!
The other problem is that (and I may offend a few people here, I sometimes forget that this is not a fire-side chat) there were no natural heirs at Standard House, or so it seemed, to DSJ, and whilst I saw him every so-often, and we occasionally chatted, I got the impression that he was less interested in the F1 cars that were appearing in the early seventies than before. He certainly never discussed the technical detail of the cars I was illustrating with me, which I found slightly odd.
The only time I can remember any lengthy conversation was when he maintained that a reflection that I had painted in a 'chrome' part of the slightly garish paintwork of the Lotus 87 was wrong. I explained why I thought I was right, he maintained I was wrong! I found a photograph in the LAT Photographic department taken from a similar angle and lo!, there was the reflection! But on seeing it he just grunted something about it still being 'wrong'. However, when he wrote the text to accompany the Motor Sport colour cutaways, it was back to the usual DSJ. Perhaps he was just not that interested in technical illustration, or in my work.
So, please don't feel that I am somehow belittling your determination to correct me on detail - I think it is fascinating, more, more...!