Talk:Coachbuilder

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Equine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Coachwork page were merged into Coachbuilder. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

"The advent of unibody construction made custom coachbuilding impossible". Oh, really? How do you explain the Pininfarina & Giugiaro showcars, then? And the fact they build bodies for carmakers? And that even as late as the Chrysler TC, bare chassis were being shipped to Italy, custom bodied, & shipped back for sale...? Trekphiler 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The designer's showcars are no custom bodied vehicles, but completely new constructed cars, which are mostly not streetlegal and often do not drive at all. Hence the name SHOWcar.--Coachbuild (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research for each coachbuilder's works seems very much worth the effort.

I. e., me - far from being an expert - found a Saoutchik-styled '48 Cadillac's picture in a pbase.com gallery - looks like a Delahaye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.76.27 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Saoutchik built most of it's custom bodies in the 30s and 40s on Delahaye chassis. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the entire list of coachbuilders sorted by country is very sad! It is of great value! The other list of coachbuilders mentioned is not the same and not sorted by country. Sorry, I just had to click the UNDO-button.--Coachbuild (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coachwork is a stub of a couple of sentences that at present is little more than a definition. As this article is light on introduction I think this could be a good merger. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There's plenty of material for both separately. We should fix them where they are (which does need doing), rather than merging, only to have to split as soon as they grow to a useful level of content. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Coachwork is the work of a coachbuilder. The history and the methods can be combined, at least for now. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remark about Duesenberg is not correct. There was an in-house design team (at a time headed by Gordon Buehrig) which designed standard Auburn and Cord and which did some custom drawing for Duesenberg, too. To add a little glamour to these designs they were called LaGrande. If chosen by the customer, they were built at Walker or Central Manufacturing, both under Cord control. LaGrande was patterned, obviously, after Le Baron. This is the reason why Le Baron, after finishing just one body for a Duesenberg J, stopped working on Duesenberg chassis. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coachbuilder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424174030/http://www.cowaylimited.co.uk/ to http://www.cowaylimited.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405145630/http://www.jankel.co.uk/ to http://www.jankel.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "auto body" is the equivalent North American term, IMO, is wrong. In my experience, "auto body" refers to damage repair, not custom body construction. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks correct to me. I've made the change and I've been Bold and removed from the lead some misunderstandings of a previous editor. I cannot claim to have got it exactly right. Eddaido (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could use a little tuning, but I'm not feeling sharp enough just now. It's a bit better; I'd have left "motor vehicle..." alone, as simpler. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I look forward to it. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coachbuilder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409232355/http://www.luxury-insider.com/Regulars/Reviews_and_Commentary/Coachbuilding/index.aspx to http://www.luxury-insider.com/Regulars/Reviews_and_Commentary/Coachbuilding/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this several years ago and no one has fixed it yet, and think it's important to fix this: when you try to link to "unibody" from another article, it gives you this page, or it gives you "Vehicle frame" as an alternative. This is not ideal; which is a person supposed to link to? A unibody is NOT a frame, that's the whole point. But it's also not "coachwork", and further than that, why is this article called "coachbuilder"? That is the name of an article about companies who specialize in building coachwork, not the article about modern vehicle bodies. So I feel stuoid linking to this article when the car body I'm talking about it a modern unit body construction car, because it is not coach work, nor is it built by a coachbuilder (what is built by coachbuilders today besides large "tour buses" and some custom car bodies?), and I feel stupid linking it "vehicle frame" because like I said, the point is that it's NOT a frame. The body structure of a modern car is a completely different technology and is far more technical and involved than just building a metal frame for a car to roll on. I suggest at the very least that unibody redirect to Vehicle frame instead of here, but even better would be if we were to make an article aboout vehicle chassis that included BOTH conventional frames and unibody construction. Then we could have a third article about coachwork/autobodies, which also has information about coachbuilding itself on it. Or we could have Automobile body and Automobile frame with autobody covering the unit body constuction, and section about coachwork/building somewhere and a historical discussion of the art of building car bodies as it once existed, and one about the modern art of building custom cars and tour busses. I don't know, anything other than what we have now. It drives me crazy whenever I try to link from Unibody and end up with "coachbuilder". A Toyota Camry's unit body construction has nothing to do with coachbuilding.

Idumea47b (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too true. There was a very strong urge to merge articles some years ago and here it was overdone. Is there any real difference between "the modern art of building custom cars and tour busses" and "the art of building car bodies as it once existed"? Would they use the same techniques? Where is Trekphiler? Eddaido (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently i've been filling in the list of automotive coachbuilders section, and I was wondering where others stand on the inclusion of coachbuilders who primarily build/built buses, trucks, ambulances, hearses or other commercial vehicles. TKOIII (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]