Talk:Bentley 8 Litre

Electron crankcase?

Does anyone know what is meant by an "electron crankcase"? Omnedon (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

138 wheelbase

How many of these are supposed to have been made? It's not obvious from the article as it stands that the number was greater than zero - 100-65-35 = 0. 86.181.177.63 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Camshaft

One or two camshafts? A four valve head would be unusual with a single cam. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

One 86.3.108.31 (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Four valves with one cam is unusual? The legendary, vaunted Rolls-Royce Merlin has a single camshaft and four valves per cylinder. At least SOME of them do. I believe Merlins with the "wedge head" have only 2 valves per cylinder. But my source for that is Wikipedia so I could easily be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Merlins aren't car engines, even Bentley engines and the "limitless budget" that entails. Single cam four valve heads aren't unknown on cars (I had a Dolomite Sprint as a kid) but they are rare, compared to twin cam layouts and simpler bucket tappets.

The reason here (and this becomes interesting) is that this is a Bentley. As Bentley were using their most unusual connecting rod camshaft drive at this time, this makes it near impossible to drive more than one camshaft. Hence their single cam, even with four valve heads. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Too many edits to fit in a summary, so I detailed them here

Regarding this edit

• It is obvious that this car has width and height, so I removed the infobox content that claims that it does not.
• Neither of the cited sources in the introductory paragraph mention a 4-Litre engine used in the same chassis.
• Neither of the cited sources states that Rolls-Royce purchased Bentley solely to end production of the 8-litre, although one mentions Rolls-Royce's view of the 8-litre as a threat.
• Formalized tone of introductory paragraph.
• Moved the opening sentence of the first paragraph of "Design and specifications", which mentions the car's ladder frame, from that paragraph, which discusses the engine, to the third paragraph, which discusses the chassis.
• I don't know about Auto Motor und Sport, but the Robson source does not mention triple connection rods. Modified the sentence referring to them to reflect what that source actually says. Also "prior Cricklewood Bentleys" is redundant, because all previous Bentleys would have been from Cricklewood.
• What is "near state-of-the-art"? Either it is "state-of-the-art" or it is not.
• Added a citation tag for content added to the second paragraph of "Design and specifications" that is not stated in the source cited at the end of the paragraph.
• The source cited for the 1931 takeover does not specify "the end of". If you have a source that does, please add it to the statement.
• Restored cited and relevant statement at the end of "Reception".
• Changed multiple citation tags in "Legacy" to one "unreferenced section".
• Clumsy sentence at beginning of "Legacy" reworded, and tone of section formalized.

The large number of citation tags in the second paragraph of "Reception" are not strictly necessary, as the citation tag at the end of the paragraph covers the whole paragraph. I left them alone because I don't really mind citation tag overkill, and because the section does have references, making the "unreferenced section" tag inapplicable. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Questioning the questionable

Automobile infobox

• Was the name of the company at the time "Bentley Motors Limited, Cricklewood, London", or was it merely "Bentley Motors Limited"? There is an "assembly" entry available in the Automobile infobox to show where the vehicle was assembled.
• Why is the word "manual" placed in parentheses in the "transmission" entry?
• In the "kerb weight" entry, why is "2.5+ tonnes" preferred over "2.5 tonnes or more"?

Automobile engine infobox

• Why do "predecessor", "successor", and "supercharger" all have "none" in their entries when the instructions given in Template:Infobox automobile engine say, in each instance, "Leave blank if this does not apply"?

Introductory paragraph

• Is "Sales (of the 8 litre) were too slow to..." really better than "The 8 Litre did not sell well enough to..."? If so, why?
• Similarly, why is "Bentley Motors was in the hands of the receiver" better than "...Bentley Motors went into receivership"?

Design and specifications

• Why is the statement "Neither engine nor gearbox were intended to contribute to the bracing of the chassis" separated from the statement "Both engine and gearbox were mounted each at three points on rubber intended to insulate the chassis and body from the least trace of vibration" when the latter is the cause of the former? This has been addressed.

Reception

• Again, who, apart maybe from the late Sir Humphrey Appleby, thinks that "failed to sell in sufficient numbers to..." is better than "did not sell well enough to..."?
• Where is the source that says that £1,850 could buy a "large architect-designed suburban house with its site" in 1930 or 1931? Also, is this what it would have cost to build a house of this type, or is this what it would have cost to buy an existing one in a market that, like the rest of the economy at the time, was depressed?

Legacy

• Why is "Their rarity means the complete cars are much sought after by collectors" believed to be better than "Bentley 8 Litres are sought after by collectors because of their rarity"?
• Further to this, what does either the rarity or the desirability of the car have to do with the removal of closed bodywork to be replaced with replica tourer bodies?
• Why are we told that "the remarkable number of 78 chassis survive" when WP:PEACOCK tells us not to use words "used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information", and includes the word "remarkable" in their list of examples?

I would change all of these if I could. In fact I have changed most, if not all, of these already. However, my changes keep being reverted, and I am close to violating WP:3RR. I therefore appeal to consensus, that other editors may judge the situation and either explain why these should be as they are or change them to what they should be.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum – Design and specifications

• Isn't the term "prior Cricklewood Bentleys" redundant when all previous Bentleys were made in Cricklewood?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bentley 8 Litre. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140419012845/http://www.rrbew.co.uk/Pdfs/NZ-issue2008-6.pdf to http://www.rrbew.co.uk/Pdfs/NZ-issue2008-6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling, incorrect usage, possible trademark violation, hounding, talk page vandalism and uncited and unreferenced content...

I attemped to correct a very obvious incorrect spelling under the "Chassis" section where some automobile expert used "castor" instead of "caster". I also attempted to remove "castor action" entirely since Deere & Company aka John Deere trademarks "CasterAction" and "Caster/Action" for its MFWD front axles on many of its farm tractors and has since the early 1980s. Unless Bentley somehow copied Deere's system, which uses a high degree of "kingpin inclination" so that the wheels lean dramatically when steered in order to reduce turning diameter/radius, its a safe bet Bentley 8 Liters do not have "caster action", much less "castor action", regardless of the "reliable source" referenced. I'm not playing the edit war game and haven't for quite some time. I put a link to proof of what I said right in one of my edit summaries and it was still reverted. Children run Wikipedia these days and there are no parents around to provide consequences, so I'll simply contact Deere & Company about a potential trademark violation and let their lawyers deal with it. Years ago I got an internet tractor forum "contributor" who was fond of posting scanned pages and schematics from Deere service manuals online shut down, so I know how seriously Deere takes its intellectual property. So good luck to old Andy. He may need it.10:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here.

Castor vs. caster is an WP:ENGVAR issue.

Mostly though, your change here produced a link to caster, rather than caster angle - which is just the wrong page.

As to trademarks, then John Deere might have a trademark for "Caster/Action", but they don't have one on the simple dictionary words "caster" or "castor".

As to the rest, then your claims have little virtue, but you might also wish to read WP:NLT. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)