Honey.. I've shrunk the car ! (1 Viewer)

scotjimland

LIFE MEMBER
Jul 25, 2007
2,246
9,754
Funster No
15
MH
A Woosh bang
Mechanic shrinks his Mini car to fit inside his motor home

article-1292530496482-0C812455000005DC-78265_636x425.jpg



Read more: Link Removed
 

artona

Free Member
Jul 31, 2007
1,511
817
Funster No
43
MH
self build
Exp
40 yrs and still not got a release date
That car started life as a Mercedes CLS coupe and there is still the same amount of space inside for passengers :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

IrasciBill

Free Member
Mar 6, 2010
194
37
SW Scotland
Funster No
10,521
MH
Auto-Roller 500
Exp
Since 2009 (after many years camping)
Mini Mini

Hi Jim, Thanks for the link. The car makes my Smart look like a stretch-limo.
Very interesting --- but! (as they used to say in "Rowan & Martin's Laugh In" for those who remember it!)

The photo seems a bit odd. Obviously taken with a wide angle lens and the distortion is quite substantial. I would have expected, however, to be able to see the second ramp. Also doesn't look as though the car will fit through the locker door - but that could just be distortion - or it could be a set-up photo for the article. Not sure about the reflections on the paintwork either!

What does our panel of experts think?

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

IrasciBill

Free Member
Mar 6, 2010
194
37
SW Scotland
Funster No
10,521
MH
Auto-Roller 500
Exp
Since 2009 (after many years camping)
Mini

Thanks for that, pablomc. The other photos explain a lot. :thumb:
Obviously the photo used by Metro (the one which ScotJimland's OP refers to) suffers from quite a lot of wide angle & processing distortion.
I didn't doubt the actual story, I know lots of people carry cars in larger MHs, it was just the photo which looked "odd". :Eeek:
Just think, if it was in the UK, the vehicle testing stations would be rubbing their hands all the way to the jobsworth awards ceremony. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 

Jaws

LIFE MEMBER
Sep 26, 2008
23,830
72,318
Thetford Norfolk
Funster No
4,189
MH
C class, Chieftain
Exp
since 2006 ( I think ! )
Wonder why it only does 75 ?
Considering it is now considerably lighter than the original I would have expected it to have the same top end at least, and get there quicker too !
 

wivvy's dad

Free Member
Jun 22, 2010
3,205
1,795
48.066895,12.862673
Funster No
12,229
MH
Transit LWB Hi-Top PVC
Exp
On and Off since '98
From the article and photographs, I can understand and see the shortening.

But I find the narrowing in width a bit more difficult to actually see. Centuries ago, and in another lifetime, I worked in a BL dealership, and to my admittedly rather rheumy eyes, that doesn't look to be narrowed. I am happy to be proved wrong nevertheless.

Aha, having checked on Google, the standard Mini width is in fact 56.7 inches, so he hasn't done any narrowing at all. Therefore, ignore the above.

This has been a Public Information Announcement.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Northerner

Free Member
Nov 29, 2010
208
0
Lancashire
Funster No
14,576
Exp
5
The photo seems a bit odd. Obviously taken with a wide angle lens and the distortion is quite substantial. I would have expected, however, to be able to see the second ramp.
What does our panel of experts think?

Well spotted, I think you may be right!
 

wivvy's dad

Free Member
Jun 22, 2010
3,205
1,795
48.066895,12.862673
Funster No
12,229
MH
Transit LWB Hi-Top PVC
Exp
On and Off since '98
Well spotted, I think you may be right!

Hmm..........cannot agree.

There is no distortion in that picture. All the verticals are................ well......... vertical

The car does have smaller front wheels than the rear, but I can see no evidence of any Photoshop manipulation, or anything else that might be wrong photographically.

On the other hand, the article copy is wrong vis-a-vis the narrowing of the car.
 

Northerner

Free Member
Nov 29, 2010
208
0
Lancashire
Funster No
14,576
Exp
5
Hmm..........cannot agree.
There is no distortion in that picture. All the verticals are................ well......... vertical

The car does have smaller front wheels than the rear, but I can see no evidence of any Photoshop manipulation, or anything else that might be wrong photographically.

On the other hand, the article copy is wrong vis-a-vis the narrowing of the car.

Perhaps I should have been more specific but I was actually referring to what appears to be the lack of second ramp. It's most odd!

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Funsters who are viewing this thread

Back
Top