I always thought he spent his time working on Gardner’s
pete smith:
Bewick:
Now come on “CF” you have had us all believing that you were in a senior management position within the firm, going by all the bollox you expected us to swallow, now we find out that you were just “a can lad” i.e. “a Gopher” and a “rubbing rag”, The management probably looked closely at there school leaver intake i.e. You! and decided that if this is the calibre of what’s available we had better kick it into touch forthwith because if this Hero ever gets his “Germans” on the levers we will go down the pan faster than a flushed toilet !
Dennis,
Now is under the impression CF was a test jockey for GM on the TM’s with Detroit’s fitted!
Hey Pete the nearest “CF” will have ever got to be a TM/GM test Jockey will have been sat at the wheel of one the Bedford exhibits at the Commercial Show and after they slung him out of the cab they probably wished they had but wipers on the INSIDE of the windscreen ! 
Cheers Dennis.
Again, the correct information is lost in a fog of b.s. IIRC, Ramone guessed the details of the lorry, the Loon said no, saying he was there at the time, so Ramone told him to go to the licensing website, which confirmed his own guesswork exactly. Why does CF not just admit that he is wrong, just once, when the evidence is there in black and white?
The whole thing is beyond a joke. Absolute facts have been determined, yet still he babbles on incessantly trying to rewrite history to suit his own agenda.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
[zb]
anorak:
Again, the correct information is lost in a fog of b.s. IIRC, Ramone guessed the details of the lorry, the Loon said no, saying he was there at the time, so Ramone told him to go to the licensing website, which confirmed his own guesswork exactly. Why does CF not just admit that he is wrong, just once, when the evidence is there in black and white?
I did ‘admit’ that I’m wrong in it probably not being a V8 engined Mandator as I’d assumed at the time and since.
Ramone ‘guessed’ that it was a ‘Mercury’.The DVLA says that it was first registered in 1975 and at present is fitted with an 8 litre motor.Nothing about it being a Mercury or a Mandator or what engine it was fitted with originally from new.
Meanwhile there’s a photo showing the thing as being a Mandator from new and before it was registered just as I’ve said albeit as Ramone rightly says probably not a V8.The evidence doesn’t get more black and white than that and it’s up to ramone to admit that he’s wrong on that issue.
Which just leaves the question as to how what is unarguably shown as being a Mandator,not a Mercury,supposedly according to the DVLA records,ended up with an 8 litre motor in it.Having been ordered for an application in which the more power it had the better and if so why. 
newmercman:
The whole thing is beyond a joke. Absolute facts have been determined, yet still he babbles on incessantly trying to rewrite history to suit his own agenda.
The absolute ‘facts’ are that I’d probably wrongly assumed that it was a V8 engined Mandator,and that it was registered in 1975 and that it was a Mandator from new.
Not a Mercury as suggested by ramone.Who’s based that idea on nothing more than the present engine capacity as stated by the DVLA which could be the result of anything from wrongly updated information to an engine change.
If not the unbelievable idea that it was ordered as a Mandator,instead of a Mercury,with a 505 ? motor in it,to do the job of a refinery tender.
Or Leyland were in the habit of meeting orders for Mandators with Mercurys badged as Mandators.
Take your pick those are the ‘facts’.
While logic says that it is/was a 760 engined Mandator that’s possibly either had an engine change from new,or wrongly updated information.If not my mistake regarding the V8 has possibly ironically stumbled on something even more unbelievable as to why Leyland ‘failed’.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
The whole thing is beyond a joke. Absolute facts have been determined, yet still he babbles on incessantly trying to rewrite history to suit his own agenda.The absolute ‘facts’ are that I’d probably wrongly assumed that it was a V8 engined Mandator,and that it was registered in 1975 and that it was a Mandator from new.
Not a Mercury as suggested by ramone.Who’s based that idea on nothing more than the present engine capacity as stated by the DVLA which could be the result of anything from wrongly updated information to an engine change.
If not the unbelievable idea that it was ordered as a Mandator,instead of a Mercury,with a 505 ? motor in it,to do the job of a refinery tender.
Or Leyland were in the habit of meeting orders for Mandators with Mercurys badged as Mandators.
Take your pick those are the ‘facts’.
While logic says that it is/was a 760 engined Mandator that’s possibly either had an engine change from new,or wrongly updated information.If not my mistake regarding the V8 has possibly ironically stumbled on something even more unbelievable as to why Leyland ‘failed’.
The DVLA say it’s a Mercury. That is a fact. You said it was a V8 Mandator. That is fiction, as is every other possible interpretation of the information that you contrive. These latest are the best, however. The DVLA has made a mistake, or someone has taken the 12 litre engine (or the V8 )out and replaced it with an 8 litre one.
Carryfast:
newmercman:
The whole thing is beyond a joke. Absolute facts have been determined, yet still he babbles on incessantly trying to rewrite history to suit his own agenda.The absolute ‘facts’ are that I’d probably wrongly assumed that it was a V8 engined Mandator,and that it was registered in 1975 and that it was a Mandator from new.
Not a Mercury as suggested by ramone.Who’s based that idea on nothing more than the present engine capacity as stated by the DVLA which could be the result of anything from wrongly updated information to an engine change.
If not the unbelievable idea that it was ordered as a Mandator,instead of a Mercury,with a 505 ? motor in it,to do the job of a refinery tender.
Or Leyland were in the habit of meeting orders for Mandators with Mercurys badged as Mandators.
Take your pick those are the ‘facts’.
While logic says that it is/was a 760 engined Mandator that’s possibly either had an engine change from new,or wrongly updated information.If not my mistake regarding the V8 has possibly ironically stumbled on something even more unbelievable as to why Leyland ‘failed’.
None of those are facts, none.
Just MTFU and admit you were wrong and I’ll delete all the posts including your original picture of the Mercury tender and you can save some face.
Or carry on and make yourself look even more of a laughing stock, your choice.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
newmercman:
Carryfast:
The absolute ‘facts’ are that I’d probably wrongly assumed that it was a V8 engined Mandator,and that it was registered in 1975 and that it was a Mandator from new.Not a Mercury as suggested by ramone.Who’s based that idea on nothing more than the present engine capacity as stated by the DVLA which could be the result of anything from wrongly updated information to an engine change.
If not the unbelievable idea that it was ordered as a Mandator,instead of a Mercury,with a 505 ? motor in it,to do the job of a refinery tender.
Or Leyland were in the habit of meeting orders for Mandators with Mercurys badged as Mandators.
Take your pick those are the ‘facts’.
While logic says that it is/was a 760 engined Mandator that’s possibly either had an engine change from new,or wrongly updated information.If not my mistake regarding the V8 has possibly ironically stumbled on something even more unbelievable as to why Leyland ‘failed’.
None of those are facts, none.
Just MTFU and admit you were wrong and I’ll delete all the posts including your original picture of the Mercury tender and you can save some face.
Or carry on and make yourself look even more of a laughing stock, your choice.
No need I’m happy enough with everything I’ve said.In admittedly having made a wrong assumption about the engine spec of the Mandator refinery tender shown and as described in all the photos.Including the 1975 Olympia inter fire exhibition pic which shows the thing before it was registered and delivered.In which case I’m guessing that you can read the badge on the front of it in ‘that’ pic and all the comments below it ?.Which leaves the only question being how a Mandator ended up with an 8 litre engine spec.Case closed.
ramone:
most people on here are aware of the nimble feet the Mercury had so using a 12.47litre AV760 Mandator
Im wrong CFs right ....... that should do the trick :wink: :smiley: One thing though that makes me think it was a Mercury is that Ive never heard of or seen a Mandator fire engine before but that doesnt mean they didnt exist ,just like the 240 Gardner engined Guy Big J.
It`s staggering to think that specialist fire equipment manufacturers would go out and buy several rare Mandator chassis and stockpile them in the hope that someone may come along and buy one. Only for Bedford to introduce the TM to scupper their plans , what a bugger
ramone:
Im wrong CFs right ....... that should do the trick :wink: :smiley: One thing though that makes me think it was a Mercury is that Ive never heard of or seen a Mandator fire engine before but that doesnt mean they didnt exist ,just like the 240 Gardner engined Guy Big J.
It`s staggering to think that specialist fire equipment manufacturers would go out and buy several rare Mandator chassis and stockpile them in the hope that someone may come along and buy one. Only for Bedford to introduce the TM to scupper their plans , what a bugger
I was there at the time. When the first TM came through the gate, we all looked at the engine and thought, “That’s what AEC should be doing- a 7 litre, two-stroke V6. Such an engine could be used in both Mercury and Mandator chassis. The driver would not be able to tell the difference.”
I reckon the Mandator badge was just that- the badges are taken off for the painter, and they put that one back on after paint, for some reason. Maybe that job was done by some naive 17 year-old trainee, who was yet to be taught his ABC.
There were some Mandator two axle rigids in this area, Hoveringham had a wagon and drag version at Dene Quarry, Cromford, and there were a couple of flatbeds but I can’t remember who owned them now! They had the 760 engine and went well compared to the Mercury, though they were no slouches.
Pete.
[zb]
anorak:
I reckon the Mandator badge was just that- the badges are taken off for the painter, and they put that one back on after paint, for some reason. Maybe that job was done by some naive 17 year-old trainee, who was yet to be taught his ABC.
Yeah right we just happened to have some spare Mandator badges in a drawer that were then stuck on the front of Mercurys at the paint shop.
I’d suggest it’s you who needs to MTFU and admit that you’re wrong for once and like ramone that you might have learn’t something if you’d open your mind a bit and stop taking a belligerent attitude to civil,informative,posts and questions.
On that note it seems a bit strange as to why you conveniently missed the significance of the Olympia exhibition pic mentioned in the comments of the one you posted.Which clearly states that it contains ‘some history’ regarding the,at that point retired from service,…Mandator.Oh wait you didn’t bother with that because it didn’t fit the script of re cabbed Mercury with a Mandator badge left on the supposed replacement cab.While as I’ve said ‘if’ there was any dodgy badge ‘engineering’ going on it would have been Leyland who did it at the chassis supply stage.
On that note if I can be bothered I might ask some questions on the site regarding how the thing seems to be the contradiction of a Mandator ordered with a Mercury type engine spec.
How I’d laugh if the answer were to come back that ramone’s ‘engine hump’ is actually electrical kit and equipment stowage etc and the thing was actually fitted with an 801 V8 subsequently fitted with the wrong motor in retirement if not wrongly stated on the DVLA records as 8001 cc.
windrush:
There were some Mandator two axle rigids in this area, Hoveringham had a wagon and drag version at Dene Quarry, Cromford, and there were a couple of flatbeds but I can’t remember who owned them now! They had the 760 engine and went well compared to the Mercury, though they were no slouches.Pete.
Carrington Viyella had some in Bradford ,not sure how many and Cyril Whiteley at Saltaire had one which the drivers much preferred to a similar A series ERF with a 180 Gardner
The definition of insanity. Repeating an exercise and expecting a different result.
The trucknetuk version of this is trying to have a different opinion than Carryfast and expecting him to accept that and move on.
So, in light of that, I’m ending the madness here and now, unless somebody can come up with conclusive evidence as to the DNA of that AEC and the rest of the batch, then any further posts on the subject will be deleted as soon as I see them.
Now I’m all for free speech and all that, but this is getting beyond a joke, it’s the same thing all the time and it’s not just Carryfast, he may well start the fire (No pun intended) but the rest of you, myself included, keep adding fuel to the fire. It stops now or I’m going to start hitting my special buttons and it won’t take too much provocation for me to start hitting my premod button.
This forum is to share anecdotes and information, a trip down memory lane if you like, it’s not a free for all to argue for the sake of arguing. All this nonsense keeps people away, people that could add interesting information or opinion to the thread and it stops questions being asked through fear of starting a big argument, think about that please, all of you.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Carryfast:
… I’d probably wrongly assumed …
Come off it Carryfast, from the evidence presented, there’s no “probably” about it.
Sorry lads, but once we cut out his verbosity, this gem of a quote is the nearest that you’ll get to Carryfast saying that he was wrong.
I’ve had this quote framed and it’s now hanging in the TruckNet museum.
newmercman:
The definition of insanity. Repeating an exercise and expecting a different result.The trucknetuk version of this is trying to have a different opinion than Carryfast and expecting him to accept that and move on.
So, in light of that, I’m ending the madness here and now, unless somebody can come up with conclusive evidence as to the DNA of that AEC and the rest of the batch, then any further posts on the subject will be deleted as soon as I see them.
Now I’m all for free speech and all that, but this is getting beyond a joke, it’s the same thing all the time and it’s not just Carryfast, he may well start the fire (No pun intended) but the rest of you, myself included, keep adding fuel to the fire. It stops now or I’m going to start hitting my special buttons and it won’t take too much provocation for me to start hitting my premod button.
This forum is to share anecdotes and information, a trip down memory lane if you like, it’s not a free for all to argue for the sake of arguing. All this nonsense keeps people away, people that could add interesting information or opinion to the thread and it stops questions being asked through fear of starting a big argument, think about that please, all of you.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
I’ve stopped posting comments on certain threads and topics which I’ve had years of experience on due to the fact they get hijacked
It’s a shame because i love reading no end of people’s comments on all kinds of different things and their experiences
Gazsa401, thanks for that, it proves my point, I know you’re not alone unfortunately. Such a shame and a waste of such useful resources.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Question-- Which of the three main Politicians in the General Election might resemble and also have the demeanour of “CF” ? and please don’t insult Farron as he is my local MP, but also a ■■■■ into the bargain ! Cheers Bewick.