[iicarJohn]

I had rather hoped that someone else would rebut at least portions of the "Hydroglen" posting (#12) of one year ago in this thread. He and I have butted heads on this topic before in other venues and I really have no desire to go through it all again. But, it would seem there has been some sort of tacit approval of his account as relating "fact" rather than mere hypothesis and perhaps even some fiction and wishful thinking?

His general account of how the three or four cars were used originally is certainly possible, but is not the only interpretation possible based on the data we have. And, it should be acknowledged that I spoke in the 1980's and 1990's with some of the same people that he has cited in past discussions to help support his claims about the possible origins of his body. Although there was generally a rather kind acknowledgement of "possibility" while discussing the claims, the rolling eyes conveyed quite a different implication as to "probability" in their minds.

One inescapable fact is that the body currently fitted to the (now former) "Hydroglen" car (built on AR 6C2500 chassis N. 915249) does not carry the distinctive build details of the body that he says it was in origin. If there was anything of the original "001" body to begin with, and that has always seemed debatable(!), then it would seem that there is little of it that remains today.

The rest of the discussion should really be a matter left to those who are involved with the car today.

Another message will follow with a document of notes and observations about these cars.

John de Boer
The Italian Car Registry