On 05/03/2022 13:03, MB wrote:
> On 05/03/2022 12:51, David Williams wrote:
>> FR24 seems to be the site journalists go to
>
> Probably because they or their employer subscribe to it.
>
> Some time ago I was going to give them a feed from my receiver but they
> do not accept feeds from Windows,

A very sensible precaution.

> I think Android only.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/03/2022 23:22, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Some weren’t delivered until 63, according to Wikipedia, but it agrees that
>> the first were in 61. I have only a very slight knowledge of US military
>> aircraft numbering, but IIUC the USAF digits before the “-“ refer to the
>> year the aicraft procurement began, so it can be several years before the
>> thing is actually manufactured, never mind when it enters service.
>>
>
> A bit like London Underground stock.
>

Well the deep tubes anyway, though their have been exceptions in pre LPTB
days such as the CLR Ealing stock or the Watford Joint stock owned by the
LNWR and Bakerloo.

The subsurface lines have usually used the letter designation since the
District first electric units in 1903 with the initial small batch of A
stock and then the production run of B stock, though the Met when it was
still independent used used letters but these were based on a combination
of manufacturer and equipment, Hence MV was Metropolitan Vickers while MW
was a similar batch but with Westinghouse brakes. After all came together
under the LPTB the letter system based on age continued with some MET stock
being given a new designation with the MW becoming T stock.
The have been numerical dates as well but in the form of an addition to the
letter such as the first R Stock being R49and later versions being R59 but
in normal use only the letter was used.
That contrasts with the later build of 1938 stock in 1949 which was known
as 1949 stock.
Keeping track on what was what with the R Stock really needs a flow chart
as some older prewar Q38 stock was later to become R38 while older
equipment with celestory roofs and straight sides was also known as Q
stock with build dates added so Q23 to Q35’ but just to complicate matters
they started life as G,K,L,M and N stocks respectively.

GH

On 05/03/2022 12:51, David Williams wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> writes:
>
>> On 04/03/2022 09:31, David Williams wrote:
>>> I guess you're using Flightradar24 (FR24).
>>
>
> Attribution and context have got lost somewhere but up-subthread
> I was asking Sam Wilson because he mentioned an aircraft type
> being reported as a callsign, and that is typical of what FR24
> does when it is missing or suppressing a callsign.
>
>> Not sure who the question is addressed to but I only very rarely look
>> at FR24, much prefer ADSB
>
> And now everybody knows about adsbexchange.com! I look at both,
> for their individual strengths and because when you see two
> versions you get a better sense of what is wrongly reported or
> missing.
>
> FR24 seems to be the site journalists go to, and that attracts
> other viewers - to overload and collapse in the early days of
> this "special military operation". FR24 has restored access but
> still seems sluggish compared to its previous performanc
>

ADSB keeps crashing on me, both with Safari and Firefox

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 05/03/2022 15:01, Graeme Wall wrote:
> ADSB keeps crashing on me, both with Safari and Firefox

I can't remember it crashing?

On 05/03/2022 15:20, MB wrote:
> On 05/03/2022 15:01, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> ADSB keeps crashing on me, both with Safari and Firefox
>
> I can't remember it crashing?
>

I cam only assume it doesn't like the Mac.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 04/03/2022 09:56, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Absolutely, Flying the same sort of patterns as the USAF and RAF RC-135s.
>
> A NORTHROP GRUMMAN RQ-4 Global Hawk has been going up and down the
> Eastern border of Poland for ages.

Yes, that, or one like it, was flying over Ukraine until the invasion. It
seems to have come out of Sicily or from a carrier in the vicinity.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 06/03/2022 09:39, Sam Wilson wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 04/03/2022 09:56, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> Absolutely, Flying the same sort of patterns as the USAF and RAF RC-135s.
>>
>> A NORTHROP GRUMMAN RQ-4 Global Hawk has been going up and down the
>> Eastern border of Poland for ages.
>
> Yes, that, or one like it, was flying over Ukraine until the invasion. It
> seems to have come out of Sicily or from a carrier in the vicinity.
>

Aren't the Nato RQ-4Ds based in Sicily?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/03/2022 09:39, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2022 09:56, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> Absolutely, Flying the same sort of patterns as the USAF and RAF RC-135s.
>>>
>>> A NORTHROP GRUMMAN RQ-4 Global Hawk has been going up and down the
>>> Eastern border of Poland for ages.
>>
>> Yes, that, or one like it, was flying over Ukraine until the invasion. It
>> seems to have come out of Sicily or from a carrier in the vicinity.
>>
>
> Aren't the Nato RQ-4Ds based in Sicily?

I don’t know, but that would be consistent with the flight paths. Catania,
possibly. They don’t seem to be visible to FR24 until they reach quite a
height.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 04/03/2022 11:06, David Williams wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/03/2022 09:31, David Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> <SNIP earlier chat about intelligence gathering flights>
>>>
>>>>> Don't want to worry you but there are a couple of B52s heading out over
>>>>> the Nrtn Sea!
>>>
>>> I think they just wanted some Lego or a look at the
>>> Schleswig-Holstein situation. ;-)
>>>
>>> In any case, Roland and I have survived their low passes (4000
>>> feet) over Cambridgeshire on March 2nd. They seem to be having
>>> day trips in all directions from RAF Fairford.
>>>
>>>> With their tracks sometimes shown dotted, presumably because they turned
>>>> off their transponders (or went into some sort of 'stealth mode')?
>>>
>>> If this was over the North Sea, it might just be reception
>>> difficulties. I saw different callsigns early in the flights,
>>> which might be a sign of garbled signals or a mismatch somewhere
>>> in a database.
>>>
>>> FlightRadar24 (FR24) uses dashed lines to show where they are
>>> estimating a route - usually a great circle path from last
>>> received position. BTW, FR24 has reiterated answers to some FAQs
>>> on Twitter over the last few days.
>>>
>>
>> For some reason there's an RAF Voyager doing circuits over western
>> Lithuania. Do these have any ELINT capability? I thought they were just
>> tankers/transports.
>>
>
> Yes, they're just air tankers (and VIP transports).
>
> It'll be refuelling other military planes that don't show up on the radar,
> most probably RAF Typhoons patrolling close to the NATO frontier with
> Belarus and Russia. For example:
>
> https://twitter.com/royalairforce/status/1499413752483127306?s=21
>
> It's flying at 27,000', typical of the refuelling altitude.
>
> There's a USAF RC-135-W flying over Poland doing the ELINT work. The USAF
> also has a KC-10-A tanker doing circuits in the area, so it's probably
> supporting USAF fighters on patrol (I noticed an F16 with its transponder
> on yesterday in the same area).

Blimey, there are three KC-135s out of Ramstein running racetracks just
now, two over Poland and one over Romania. There must be some other busy
things batting around out there.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:37:10 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 06/03/2022 09:39, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 04/03/2022 09:56, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Absolutely, Flying the same sort of patterns as the USAF and RAF RC-135s.
>>>>
>>>> A NORTHROP GRUMMAN RQ-4 Global Hawk has been going up and down the
>>>> Eastern border of Poland for ages.
>>>
>>> Yes, that, or one like it, was flying over Ukraine until the invasion. It
>>> seems to have come out of Sicily or from a carrier in the vicinity.
>>>
>>
>> Aren't the Nato RQ-4Ds based in Sicily?
>
>I don’t know, but that would be consistent with the flight paths. Catania,
>possibly. They don’t seem to be visible to FR24 until they reach quite a
>height.
>
There is currently a Luxembourg Boeing E-3 Sentry (NATO12) on its
third pass inland from the west side of the Black Sea
(Murted-up/dound/around Eastern Romania). At one point its earlier
loops in the flightpath look suspiciously like a cock and balls
pointing at Moscow.

On 5 Mar 2022 13:51:25 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 04/03/2022 23:22, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Some weren’t delivered until 63, according to Wikipedia, but it agrees that
>>> the first were in 61. I have only a very slight knowledge of US military
>>> aircraft numbering, but IIUC the USAF digits before the “-“ refer to the
>>> year the aicraft procurement began, so it can be several years before the
>>> thing is actually manufactured, never mind when it enters service.
>>>
>>
>> A bit like London Underground stock.
>>
>
>
>Well the deep tubes anyway, though their have been exceptions in pre LPTB
>days such as the CLR Ealing stock or the Watford Joint stock owned by the
>LNWR and Bakerloo.
>
>The subsurface lines have usually used the letter designation since the
>District first electric units in 1903 with the initial small batch of A
>stock and then the production run of B stock, though the Met when it was
>still independent used used letters but these were based on a combination
>of manufacturer and equipment, Hence MV was Metropolitan Vickers while MW
>was a similar batch but with Westinghouse brakes. After all came together
>under the LPTB the letter system based on age continued with some MET stock
>being given a new designation with the MW becoming T stock.
>The have been numerical dates as well but in the form of an addition to the
>letter such as the first R Stock being R49and later versions being R59 but
>in normal use only the letter was used.
>That contrasts with the later build of 1938 stock in 1949 which was known
>as 1949 stock.
>Keeping track on what was what with the R Stock really needs a flow chart
>as some older prewar Q38 stock was later to become R38 while older
>equipment with celestory roofs and straight sides was also known as Q
>stock with build dates added so Q23 to Q35’ but just to complicate matters
>they started life as G,K,L,M and N stocks respectively.
>
Both A stock and C stock were delivered in two batches; AFAIR neither
had the numbers when first introduced. In the case of A stock there
were minor equipment differences but in both cases the trains were
functionally identical.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 15:42:07 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 05/03/2022 15:20, MB wrote:
>> On 05/03/2022 15:01, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> ADSB keeps crashing on me, both with Safari and Firefox
>>
>> I can't remember it crashing?
>>
>
>I cam only assume it doesn't like the Mac.
>
It seems to run quite happily on Chrome/Windows.

In message <k8bp1h5n50deejeu55bi2o5i5m1hegb7c7@4ax.com>, at 11:31:29 on
Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>There never was a joint development project.
>
>The Freelander was always a Rover project, and the CR-V always a Honda
>project. They were never connected.

Later... There was a proposal for a joint design, but the two teams
ultimately decided to go their own ways. The CRV-1 and 5-door
Freelander-1 looked remarkably similar, and that's not a co-incidence.

Since then, the CRV has drifted ever closer to the estate car end of the
crossover spectrum, while the Freelander-2 is much more like a second
generation Discovery. But based on my own experience, a more practical
and comfortable car, plus the 4x4 ability when you need it.

It's difficult to make a vehicle that's all things to all men, and I did
start off with the idea that a CRV was the right thing (but changed my
mind for something a bigger and tougher). I've previously had a Honda
Pilot, and that's remarkably similar to a Freelander-2.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <k8bp1h5n50deejeu55bi2o5i5m1hegb7c7@4ax.com>, at 11:31:29 on
> Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> There never was a joint development project.
>>
>> The Freelander was always a Rover project, and the CR-V always a Honda
>> project. They were never connected.
>
> Later... There was a proposal for a joint design, but the two teams
> ultimately decided to go their own ways.

What evidence do you have for the highly unlikely assertion that Honda ever
intended to co-develop any of its models with Rover? It was strictly a
one-way flow, with the floundering Rover licensing some Honda designs. As
far as I'm aware, no Honda was based on anything from Rover.

> The CRV-1 and 5-door
> Freelander-1 looked remarkably similar, and that's not a co-incidence.

Why not? They were both responding to the Vitara, but had nothing to do
with each other.

In message <t118mp$96i$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:26:33 on Fri, 18 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <k8bp1h5n50deejeu55bi2o5i5m1hegb7c7@4ax.com>, at 11:31:29 on
>> Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> There never was a joint development project.
>>>
>>> The Freelander was always a Rover project, and the CR-V always a Honda
>>> project. They were never connected.
>>
>> Later... There was a proposal for a joint design, but the two teams
>> ultimately decided to go their own ways.
>
>What evidence do you have for the highly unlikely assertion that Honda ever
>intended to co-develop any of its models with Rover?

There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely a
fiction. And was something I'd heard of years ago before I even thought
about buying either resulting vehicle. I did expect them to be more
similar mechanically, when comparing CRV with Freelander-1 three years
ago, but in the end I bought neither.

>> The CRV-1 and 5-door
>> Freelander-1 looked remarkably similar, and that's not a co-incidence.
>
>Why not? They were both responding to the Vitara, but had nothing to do
>with each other.

Not as it turned out, but there was a proposition to do a joint
development, which must have been sufficiently well laid out to get to
the point of being rejected.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t118mp$96i$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:26:33 on Fri, 18 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <k8bp1h5n50deejeu55bi2o5i5m1hegb7c7@4ax.com>, at 11:31:29 on
>>> Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> There never was a joint development project.
>>>>
>>>> The Freelander was always a Rover project, and the CR-V always a Honda
>>>> project. They were never connected.
>>>
>>> Later... There was a proposal for a joint design, but the two teams
>>> ultimately decided to go their own ways.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for the highly unlikely assertion that Honda ever
>> intended to co-develop any of its models with Rover?
>
> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely a fiction.

Cite it then.

> And was something I'd heard of years ago before I even thought
> about buying either resulting vehicle. I did expect them to be more
> similar mechanically, when comparing CRV with Freelander-1 three years
> ago, but in the end I bought neither.
>
>>> The CRV-1 and 5-door
>>> Freelander-1 looked remarkably similar, and that's not a co-incidence.
>>
>> Why not? They were both responding to the Vitara, but had nothing to do
>> with each other.
>
> Not as it turned out, but there was a proposition to do a joint
> development, which must have been sufficiently well laid out to get to
> the point of being rejected.

There was no such prospect. Honda had no interest in working with Rover to
develop any of its own models.

In message <t12m0b$27o$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:19:39 on Fri, 18 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely a fiction.
>
>Cite it then.

I'm disinclined to, because you'll probably say "that doesn't prove
what you think it does", and to respect your apparent disdain for what
you characterise as pointless arguments, I don't want to be accused of
fuelling another one.

It's "just a car". Move on.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t12m0b$27o$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:19:39 on Fri, 18 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely a fiction.
>>
>> Cite it then.
>
> I'm disinclined to, because you'll probably say "that doesn't prove
> what you think it does", and to respect your apparent disdain for what
> you characterise as pointless arguments, I don't want to be accused of
> fuelling another one.
>
> It's "just a car". Move on.

Hey, Roland has finally admitted he was completely wrong about something!

In message <t14kcv$d5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:31 on Sat, 19 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t12m0b$27o$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:19:39 on Fri, 18 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely a fiction.
>>>
>>> Cite it then.
>>
>> I'm disinclined to, because you'll probably say "that doesn't prove
>> what you think it does", and to respect your apparent disdain for what
>> you characterise as pointless arguments, I don't want to be accused of
>> fuelling another one.
>>
>> It's "just a car". Move on.
>
>Hey, Roland has finally admitted he was completely wrong about something!

The only thing I'm admitting to is being *right* to try to stop you
pursuing your fanciful idea that there wasn't a joint project, even if
it didn't get very far.

Frankly, I have better things to do than produce cites that I know will
simply be rejected with "that doesn't prove what you think it does".

And having nipped that pointless argument of yours in the bud, perhaps
it's all turned out for the best.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t14kcv$d5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:31 on Sat, 19 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t12m0b$27o$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:19:39 on Fri, 18 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely a fiction.
>>>>
>>>> Cite it then.
>>>
>>> I'm disinclined to, because you'll probably say "that doesn't prove
>>> what you think it does", and to respect your apparent disdain for what
>>> you characterise as pointless arguments, I don't want to be accused of
>>> fuelling another one.
>>>
>>> It's "just a car". Move on.
>>
>> Hey, Roland has finally admitted he was completely wrong about something!
>
> The only thing I'm admitting to is being *right* to try to stop you
> pursuing your fanciful idea that there wasn't a joint project, even if
> it didn't get very far.

You need to get past your false memory syndrome and read up on the CB40
Pathfinder project. For example:
<https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Land_Rover_Freelander.html?id=heEoDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y>

>
> Frankly, I have better things to do than produce cites that I know will
> simply be rejected with "that doesn't prove what you think it does".

That's because there are none.

>
> And having nipped that pointless argument of yours in the bud, perhaps
> it's all turned out for the best.

Yup, that's your version of admitting you didn't know what you were talking
about.

In message <t1pcti$me3$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:38 on Sun, 27 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t14kcv$d5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:31 on Sat, 19 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t12m0b$27o$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:19:39 on Fri, 18 Mar
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely a fiction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite it then.
>>>>
>>>> I'm disinclined to, because you'll probably say "that doesn't prove
>>>> what you think it does", and to respect your apparent disdain for what
>>>> you characterise as pointless arguments, I don't want to be accused of
>>>> fuelling another one.
>>>>
>>>> It's "just a car". Move on.
>>>
>>> Hey, Roland has finally admitted he was completely wrong about something!
>>
>> The only thing I'm admitting to is being *right* to try to stop you
>> pursuing your fanciful idea that there wasn't a joint project, even if
>> it didn't get very far.
>
>You need to get past your false memory syndrome and read up on the CB40
>Pathfinder project. For example:
><https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Land_Rover_Freelander.html?id=he
>EoDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y>
>
>> Frankly, I have better things to do than produce cites that I know will
>> simply be rejected with "that doesn't prove what you think it does".
>
>That's because there are none.
>>
>> And having nipped that pointless argument of yours in the bud, perhaps
>> it's all turned out for the best.
>
>Yup, that's your version of admitting you didn't know what you were talking
>about.

Oddly enough there's more than sufficient breadcrumbs in that book to
indicate that they must have got at least as far as working up a joint
proposal, that Honda then said "not today, thanks". Ironically when
Honda did decide to make a vehicle for that market, they got there
before Rover.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t1pcti$me3$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:38 on Sun, 27 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t14kcv$d5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:31 on Sat, 19 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t12m0b$27o$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:19:39 on Fri, 18 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely a fiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite it then.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm disinclined to, because you'll probably say "that doesn't prove
>>>>> what you think it does", and to respect your apparent disdain for what
>>>>> you characterise as pointless arguments, I don't want to be accused of
>>>>> fuelling another one.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's "just a car". Move on.
>>>>
>>>> Hey, Roland has finally admitted he was completely wrong about something!
>>>
>>> The only thing I'm admitting to is being *right* to try to stop you
>>> pursuing your fanciful idea that there wasn't a joint project, even if
>>> it didn't get very far.
>>
>> You need to get past your false memory syndrome and read up on the CB40
>> Pathfinder project. For example:
>> <https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Land_Rover_Freelander.html?id=he
>> EoDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y>
>>
>>> Frankly, I have better things to do than produce cites that I know will
>>> simply be rejected with "that doesn't prove what you think it does".
>>
>> That's because there are none.
>>>
>>> And having nipped that pointless argument of yours in the bud, perhaps
>>> it's all turned out for the best.
>>
>> Yup, that's your version of admitting you didn't know what you were talking
>> about.
>
> Oddly enough there's more than sufficient breadcrumbs in that book to
> indicate that they must have got at least as far as working up a joint
> proposal, that Honda then said "not today, thanks". Ironically when
> Honda did decide to make a vehicle for that market, they got there
> before Rover.
>

Well, obviously. The flow was strictly one-way: several Rover/MG models
were based on licensed Honda designs. No Honda models were based on
anything from Rover.

Rover was a dying company that could no longer generate the resources to
create its own new models, and so had to make do with building another
company's designs under licence, with slightly different body designs. Even
with that assistance, and BMW's subsequent ownership, MG Rover still
collapsed a few years later, with the Chinese scooping up the ashes.

Honda was, and is, a proud, fiercely-independent, Japanese company that had
no interest in any collaboration with a failing old British company.

In message <t24133$ah1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:51:16 on Thu, 31 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1pcti$me3$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:38 on Sun, 27 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t14kcv$d5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:31 on Sat, 19 Mar
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t12m0b$27o$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:19:39 on Fri, 18 Mar
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely
>>>>>>>>a fiction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite it then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm disinclined to, because you'll probably say "that doesn't prove
>>>>>> what you think it does", and to respect your apparent disdain for what
>>>>>> you characterise as pointless arguments, I don't want to be accused of
>>>>>> fuelling another one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's "just a car". Move on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, Roland has finally admitted he was completely wrong about something!
>>>>
>>>> The only thing I'm admitting to is being *right* to try to stop you
>>>> pursuing your fanciful idea that there wasn't a joint project, even if
>>>> it didn't get very far.
>>>
>>> You need to get past your false memory syndrome and read up on the CB40
>>> Pathfinder project. For example:
>>> <https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Land_Rover_Freelander.html?id=he
>>> EoDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y>
>>>
>>>> Frankly, I have better things to do than produce cites that I know will
>>>> simply be rejected with "that doesn't prove what you think it does".
>>>
>>> That's because there are none.
>>>>
>>>> And having nipped that pointless argument of yours in the bud, perhaps
>>>> it's all turned out for the best.
>>>
>>> Yup, that's your version of admitting you didn't know what you were talking
>>> about.
>>
>> Oddly enough there's more than sufficient breadcrumbs in that book to
>> indicate that they must have got at least as far as working up a joint
>> proposal, that Honda then said "not today, thanks". Ironically when
>> Honda did decide to make a vehicle for that market, they got there
>> before Rover.
>
>Well, obviously. The flow was strictly one-way: several Rover/MG models
>were based on licensed Honda designs. No Honda models were based on
>anything from Rover.

And there numerous mentions in the book about Rover using Honda
components during the Freelander development phase. The still-born
joint project could have been Rover badging a largely Honda design,
but that doesn't detract from an initial ambition to explore a joint
project, and the two independently developed vehicles sharing much of
that original concept.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t24133$ah1$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:51:16 on Thu, 31 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t1pcti$me3$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:05:38 on Sun, 27 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t14kcv$d5p$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:31 on Sat, 19 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t12m0b$27o$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:19:39 on Fri, 18 Mar
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's sufficient digital footprint for it not to be entirely
>>>>>>>>> a fiction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite it then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm disinclined to, because you'll probably say "that doesn't prove
>>>>>>> what you think it does", and to respect your apparent disdain for what
>>>>>>> you characterise as pointless arguments, I don't want to be accused of
>>>>>>> fuelling another one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's "just a car". Move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, Roland has finally admitted he was completely wrong about something!
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing I'm admitting to is being *right* to try to stop you
>>>>> pursuing your fanciful idea that there wasn't a joint project, even if
>>>>> it didn't get very far.
>>>>
>>>> You need to get past your false memory syndrome and read up on the CB40
>>>> Pathfinder project. For example:
>>>> <https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Land_Rover_Freelander.html?id=he
>>>> EoDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y>
>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, I have better things to do than produce cites that I know will
>>>>> simply be rejected with "that doesn't prove what you think it does".
>>>>
>>>> That's because there are none.
>>>>>
>>>>> And having nipped that pointless argument of yours in the bud, perhaps
>>>>> it's all turned out for the best.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, that's your version of admitting you didn't know what you were talking
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> Oddly enough there's more than sufficient breadcrumbs in that book to
>>> indicate that they must have got at least as far as working up a joint
>>> proposal, that Honda then said "not today, thanks". Ironically when
>>> Honda did decide to make a vehicle for that market, they got there
>>> before Rover.
>>
>> Well, obviously. The flow was strictly one-way: several Rover/MG models
>> were based on licensed Honda designs. No Honda models were based on
>> anything from Rover.
>
> And there numerous mentions in the book about Rover using Honda
> components during the Freelander development phase.

And why not? Rover was well-used to using licensed Honda technology to
underpin its own cars, where it lacked its own. But not vice versa.

> The still-born
> joint project could have been Rover badging a largely Honda design,
> but that doesn't detract from an initial ambition to explore a joint
> project, and the two independently developed vehicles sharing much of
> that original concept.

I don't doubt that Rover would have been very interested in licensing a
Honda small SUV model, had one already existed at the time. But Honda would
not have considered collaborating with Rover to design any of its own
models.

So there was no still-born joint development project.

In message <t24581$b7s$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:02:09 on Thu, 31 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>> The still-born joint project could have been Rover badging a largely
>>Honda design, but that doesn't detract from an initial ambition to
>>explore a joint project, and the two independently developed vehicles
>>sharing much of that original concept.
>
>I don't doubt that Rover would have been very interested in licensing a
>Honda small SUV model, had one already existed at the time. But Honda would
>not have considered collaborating with Rover to design any of its own
>models.
>
>So there was no still-born joint development project.

I originally posted:

"It started as a joint development with Honda, but the teams soon
split"

You are simply disagreeing about "how soon".

--
Roland Perry