From: Richard Shirres <richardshirres@gmail.com>
To: TATE Austin <A.Tate@ed.ac.uk>

Subject: Supercar: The enigma of its form

Dear Austin,

We last corresponded about 18 yrs (?) ago I think on Supercar.
I’m the guy who sent you the picture of Mike Mercury head for a marionette I carved.
But up to about then I’d been trying to do work by photographs of the vehicle from the series (VHS tapes!),
combined with drawing perspective lines to try to pin down ratios.
Then my work took over (Last 5 yrs around saltmarsh restoration) and then I retired.

Despite a cottage to renovate, I just started back on re-examining the form this last April.
I’m guessing what drives Mick, Shane and your self is the enigma that is the Supercar form.
If only Gerry Anderson had done a deal with Lesney, the model would have been photographed 'to death’ for their
drawing office and production process.  As it was we got the Budgie that I completely baulked at, given its ratios.

From what I know of Reg Hill, I still cannot fathom why no design drawings have ever come to light, or
why he never documented the marionette model by photography orthogonal to the model.
Instead, it seems to require diligent forensic scrutiny of the spatial form, largely through the many, mostly, oblique shots.
Only zealots need apply! 

The models of Martin Bower (I know he corresponded with Reg) came fairly close.

My recent efforts are still primitive & based on establishing comparative ratios through repeated examination
and reconciliation by exercising some weighting based on the perspective and verisimilitude of the views captured.

I’ve only just seen the latest attempts to refine your computer modelling, notably by Shane’s work.
The blog 'Shane Pickering – Supercar Cutaway Take Two’, I really appreciated the work. 

I agree with a most of his remarks on tweaking the form.

Incidentally, I’ve long thought Brian Lewis had the best contemporary grasp of the vehicle's form.
Anyhow, from what I can see so far it is now looking like you are really capturing most of the form.
I would need to see more before I could make a proper study.

Just a few comments for now, most of the base of the back aerial I’d expect to be visible from a true side elevation,
ie. not obscured by the fin. - see p14 of PDF.
The outer longitudinal (light grey/white) margin adjacent to the fin is broader than seems depicted, 
 especially adjacent to the wings.
The front ellipse now looks right; and I think the Suters Store photograph is important for that.
The revision to the 'on plan' tapering of the bonnet may be half way between previous and suggested revision.
The front bonnet light grey aprons, bounded by the gold trim, may be slightly wider up to & from the lights forward.
The slightly expanded new hull ‘contour’ from the cockpit rearwards I’d agree with. 
The 6 smaller exhausts are slightly smaller with a greater gap either side of the main exhaust.

ANYWAY,  I offer up the attached PDF, which comes from the pptx I’m working on,
with accompanying xls of working in the hope it may be of assistance to trigger further reflection.
The attached may not look it but there’s quite a bit of work in there.  
Albeit, no doubt, a tiny fraction of what you’ve all put in so far.

I’d be grateful if you could forward to Shane with my best regards for his work, in case the attached might help.

I’d be really keen to see some further views.

All the very best to you and Mick,

With best regards, Richard