'Donald Campbell- The Final Record Attempt' by Neil Sheppard

[f1steveuk]

I never take anything to much to heart, life is too short! I was just showing that we will all never agree, and it would be wrong if we did, and suspicious!!! Although it was a good review

You wait until my "Dot-to-Dot" book of Bluebird comes out, you wont be able to put it down!!

But yes, we should all have opinions, and they can be voiced, but they do have to be stated politely and respectfully, we all have feelings, not that anyone has hurt mine

[sheppane]

Following on from my post on the 17th of November, we have published a set of notes on the Bluebird K7 Website:

http://www.bluebirdk7.com/index.php/boo ... k/55-notes

We believe that they answer the points alluded to by Mr Stevens in his review of the book on Amazon.co.uk, where he stated:

'I give it one star for presentation, but none for accuracy of content. There are very many factual mistakes and the theory of engine failure is not supported by experts. My notes on the mistakes take up three foolscap pages!'

We have answered each point on Mr Stevens three pages one by one. We will let you be the judge.

[Renegadenemo]

I read as far through that list of pernickety, nit-picking crap as far as the part about the condition of Donald's mortal remains.

This is something I will not normally be drawn on though numerous individuals have asked the question, quite understandably because morbid curiosity is as natural as wanting souvenirs, only to be told that it's not up for discussion, so to hold it up as a reason for finding fault with a book is just disgusting.

But, for the record, bodies that slowly degrade in cold, deep, freshwater preserve extremely well indeed. Look up 'adipocere'. That's as far as I will go and Mr Stevens ought to be ashamed.

[mtskull]

The review achieves nothing except to betray itself as the work of a bitter and twisted individual.
The review stats. speak for themselves:
35 reviews
31 give 5 stars
3 give 4 stars
1 gives 1 star
(Also check out the number of readers who "found this review helpful")

[polo]

well I thought it was a good read!
so critical reviews be blowed.
In your reply to the criticisms page 9, top paragraph, first word, last line, " seized", should this be ceased? Just in case Mr Stevens writes another war and peace on the reply.

[Renegadenemo]

How many times! It's not a shoe - they were briefly fitted the front of the sponsons and deleted very early on. It's a planing WEDGE!

[ted.walsh]

Isnt the rear planing wedge shallower than the rudder by a good 4 inches or so? doesn't this make the wedge-fin height closer to 8'2" inc the top cap?

[quicksilver-wsr]

How many times! It's not a shoe - they were briefly fitted the front of the sponsons and deleted very early on. It's a planing WEDGE!

I'm not sure how the word "shoe" got into such common usage when K7 is mentioned, but it may have had a lot to do with Ken (Norris) always using that word in relation to both Bluebird and Quicksilver.

Maybe he liked the word and it stuck.

For me, "planing surfaces" does it.

Nigel

[ozjet400]

How many times! It's not a shoe - they were briefly fitted the front of the sponsons and deleted very early on. It's a planing WEDGE!

Rear shoe.. Ski, wedge, rear sponson...or railway sleeper cut on an angle... Can depend on where in the world you are..... And where you got your edumactaishin ..

Yank racers use shoe a lot


DW

[Renegadenemo]

It's just what's written on the drawings. The 'shoes' were very specific items relating to the sponsons and the boat ran on wedges, according to Norris Bro's.

Having spent many many weeks poring over the drawings our Mike should have got that one correct. Ha ha - busted!