Advertising Last completed movie pages
1964 Triumph 2000 Mk1 Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2007-07-12 00:27 |
mk1 |
|
◊ 2007-07-12 07:04 |
I was thinking like you, but have a look here: /vehicle_12709-Triumph-2000-1964.html |
|
◊ 2007-07-12 21:15 |
I would say it's just a matter of criterion. The models that we know now as MkI, Series 1, 1a serie, etc., were not known like that when they were new. Of course it was when an evolution bearing the same name was launched that the first model received a designation to help to distinguish it from the newer one. Nowadays, this is commonly accepted in order to facilitate a more direct identification of a specific model. |
|
◊ 2007-07-12 22:36 |
That discussion was before we had the Markfield to use, at the time Mk 1 would have been written in the modelfield. And into that field only the correct designation goes, as correct as possible. Marks, series, phases or whatever used depending on the vehicles is mostly not used by the manufacturer. With some exceptions of course, sometimes a Mark even is a modelname or part of it. Still they might be useful for keeping the generations apart, so the Mk-field was made as a solution. |
|
◊ 2007-07-13 07:55 |
Alors, Antoine, on fait quoi????? |
|
◊ 2007-07-13 21:34 |
Je sais pas moi, j'aurais tendance à mettre mk1 pour celles qui le sont, et laisser "rien" pour celles pour lesquelles on ne peut pas le savoir. Mais je ne sais pas ce qui se fait d'habitude pour les Triumph dans les clubs etc. |
|
◊ 2007-07-14 07:52 |
Je suis aussi de ton avis, mais comme les deux modèles sont assez dissemblables, il ne devrait pas y avoir de "Mk inconnu". S'il est exact qu'à leur sortie, les premières n'étaient pas badgées Mk1, dans un soucis de classement sur le site, on devrait quand même l'indiquer. Quant aux clubs, il utilisent bien évidemment le "Mk1". Je mets donc à jour... |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
