OpenCommunityimcdb - Non-Unidentified Vehicles

11/02/2015 @ 17:02:45: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

what about this ?? even Lateef and Kegare can't object ...
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_774765.html

11/02/2015 @ 18:40:41: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

http://imcdb.org/vehicle_728432.html
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_698077.html
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_553132.html

12/02/2015 @ 19:03:07: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

http://imcdb.org/vehicle_734558.html
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_765203.html
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_779733.html
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_529200.html

IMO too background to list.. but
http://imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=312407

14/02/2015 @ 15:52:46: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

I think it's busted french crane in a french colony
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_428801.html

15/02/2015 @ 23:17:39: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

what about this ??
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_759626.html

17/02/2015 @ 14:59:30: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

star increase perhaps may pic changed too ??

http://imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=786516

I go with Scoopmobile or it really is to far and brakes the same frame for star rule ?
http://imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=787166

17/02/2015 @ 15:23:00: antp: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

I already replied to that one.
As I said, it is probably break rather than brake, or else I do not understand :tongue:

And it does not "break the rule": it is not an absolute rule, more like a guidelines to avoid excesses.

Also, not missed: you just said "it could be", that didn't look like a clear identification!

17/02/2015 @ 18:43:23: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

it's break then

wel since ROlite confirmed not to be a Michigan I am sure it's a Scoopmobile

17/02/2015 @ 23:07:16: antp: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

Yes but that was today, so not missed

19/02/2015 @ 20:15:20: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

http://imcdb.org/vehicle_752621.html
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_787670.html

20/02/2015 @ 10:31:42: antp: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

1st one except putting "Mercedes-Benz unknown", it still miss part of the name, no ?

2nd one was not missed, his comment was not looking so sure, I was waiting for someone else to confirm

20/02/2015 @ 17:19:30: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

this one looks CGI and not that well visible
http://imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=621277

23/02/2015 @ 19:41:38: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

SOmeca unknown
http://imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=788755

some image need replacing
http://imcdb.org/movie.php?id=57809

24/02/2015 @ 15:53:31: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

http://imcdb.org/vehicle_788652.html

25/02/2015 @ 19:00:51: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

http://imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=790218

25/02/2015 @ 23:24:47: antp: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

Not yet missed

26/02/2015 @ 17:55:55: mike962: Non-Unidentified Vehicles

http://imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=779443