N.B.—Opinions expressed are those of our Correspondents and Motor Sport does not necessarily associate itself with them. — Ed.
In one of your recent editorials you warned motorists of some parts of the country which dealt harshly with motorists in their law courts. I should like to draw your attention to Wiltshire. Some two months ago, when driving from Cornwall to St. Albans, I was caught in that insidious device — the Radar Speed Trap — in the small village of Seend. This was my first motoring offence of any nature in eight years of cars and motorcycles. The savage sentence imposed on me by the Magistrates’ Court at Devizes was a £7 fine, plus 5s. costs and my licence endorsed.
I was unable to attend the court due to my work and merely signed the form, pleading guilty. In my local area a policeman has told me that the maximum sentence I would have received here would probably have been £3 for a first offence.
We are told that we receive justice in our British courts, but it seems that an unduly large lump of it was flung at my head.
May I wish you continued success with your excellent magazine.
I am, Yours, etc., R. L. Hood. St. Albans.
I was interested to read in your report this month of the Sunbeam Alpine, a severe criticism of the “lethal metal projections” waiting to puncture the head of the driver. Why do designers commit such fantastic errors?
Another glaring instance is in the Jaguar XK150 drophead coupe. The fittings for the hood protrude over two inches towards the centre of the driver’s forehead. A suggestion that padded sun vizors should be fitted to lessen the impact is met by the extraordinary comment that it is not the policy of the firm to fit vizors on that model! The safety or convenience of the driver seems to be secondary to ease of production and a good balance sheet.
Another disgraceful mistake is the fitting of the battery in the wings of the XK150. After several minutes scraping away of cow manure and underseal a panel can be removed, disclosing the side of a battery that it is almost impossible to top up. If we should be rash enough to want to take the battery out it is not too difficult, if we do not mind taking the wheel off first! Putting the muddy panel back is even more difficult than getting it off. If we are still in the mood, of course, we can then carry on and do the whole job again on the other side of the car for the remaining six volts. This on a car with no starting handle and, in my case, with automatic transmission — very unpushable!!
Going back to the safety angle, I find the handle for the front quarter-light just waiting to catch in the cuff of the glove of the unwary, making a sudden turn to the right an uncertain operation. One remedy is to open the quarter-light, but the sharp corner just cuts chunks out of the back of your hand. The sharp edge on the top of the frame disclosed when the window is down has to be felt to be believed.
Of course, the engine and brakes are wonderful but why spoil a good car by such idiotic boobs in design? And I have only space to mention three out of the many.
I am, Yours, etc., Peter F. Hall. Shenton.
Praise for the Fiat 600
I’m quite embarrassed with myself for feeling so smug. With hugely expensive newspaper advertisements screaming about exciting new baby — sorry, “light ” — cars all over the place, there’s me trundling about in a three-year-old model that has ’em all beaten. Independent suspension? Got it. Plenty of room? Stacks of it. Power? Ouch! that pain in my back. Steering lock? Who’s for ring-o-roses. Visibility? We grow tomatoes in it. Gearbox? Unbeatable.
The car is, of course, a Fiat 600. Having seen and tried most of the new babies, I’m sure there’s nothing to touch it. Motor Sport keeps on telling me that the maximum speed of my model is 60 m.p.h. I get 72 m.p.h., with no more preparation than half a pint of Bardahl added to the sump. There’s a heater as standard equipment, and the most purposeful looks and careful finish of them all.
Despite the motoring correspondents (most of whose eulogies for the new cars, you will have noticed, were on pages facing paid-for advertisements), I’m sure no small-car owner ever had it so good as me.
I am, Yours, etc., Bruce Marshall. London, W.9.
Short and Long Strokes
At the risk of re-introducing a hoary subject, I have been intrigued by the advent of the over-square engine pioneered by Dr. Porsche, and now finding more general acceptance. This is said to facilitate high-speed motor road cruising without excessive bore wear.
It was once written in Motor Sport that a long-stroke engine would be lighter for the same power, so if this holds good, these modern engines may not be so efficient. It is suspected that the real reason for shorter bores is simply that production engineers find them cheaper to make.
While the rate of bore wear depends on the usage, the long-stroke engine seems to be able to accommodate much more wear without affecting oil consumption. In fact, with the modern engine oil consumption seems more difficult to keep within reasonable bounds. (For example, certain 1½-litre engines a few years back.)
I have heard it suggested that the last long-stroke Riley 2½-litre engines made by B.M.C. were guaranteed to do 100,000 miles between rebores.
Personal experience with the Riley Nine engine seems to indicate that it would do very well for motor road work, where VW fuel consumptions and negligible oil consumptions could be expected.
Incidentally, I understand this engine was designed by a Hugh Rose, who also was responsible for the Lea-Francis engine of the same configuration, and that, according to your journal, the cylinder and valve gear arrangement was preceded by that of Dorman.
Has anyone any further light to shed on these views and this last statement?
I am, Yours, etc., J. F. Tadman. Derby.
Salute to Ferrari
I should like to express my own feeling of intense pleasure at your choice of subject for your November coloured front cover.
You could not have paid a more timely tribute to Ferrari, without whose continued support for so many years Grand Prix motor racing would have lapsed into obscurity — a fate which may well befall it if classic starting grids continue to he cluttered up with “make-it-yourself ” entries!
I am, Yours, etc., J. H. Capon. Beckenham.
Dagenham or Detroit?
I am rather puzzled by the claim made in motoring circles that the Ford cars assembled between strikes at Dagenham are British. By what stretch of imagination has this come about? Does it imply that the Yanks have become all brotherly and loving and given us a whacking great factory and all the profits because they were kinda sorry for us and it made ’em feel good right deep down inside; or were they simply fed up with the British shirking man and his pathological dislike of work?
What, Mr. Editor, would be the reactions of yourself and General de Gaulle if I were to stick a brace of Union Jacks on my Bugatti?
I am, Yours, etc., Joseph Bayley. Charlton.
Model C.I. Engines
We were particularly interested to read in “Rumblings” the account of the E.D. range of engines. The fact that you devoted so much space to this would indicate that you considered that your readers would be interested in miniature motors,and we therefore thought that some slight additional information may be of use to you.
The first point is that these model engines are divided into two distinct categories — compression-ignition and glow plug (this ignores the spark ignition motor, whose use in aircraft is virtually extinct). The former you cover well in your write-up, while the latter are the type of motor which is used with a methanol nitro-methane based fuel. In place of the compression lever of a diesel they have a plug, and to start the motor a 2-volt accumulator is connected to this, causing an internal element to glow. As soon as the motor starts the accumulator is disconnected and the engine will continue to run, the heat from the explosion, plus the catalytic action of the fuel on the plug element allowing ignition to continue.
This type of motor is capable of the highest development and tuning, but quoting r.p.m. or b.h.p. figures gives little idea of their power output. Suffice it to say that speed models flown on 52 ft. length control lines can reach speeds of up to 140 m.p.h. when powered with a 2.5-c.c. motor. To reach these speeds the engine must be turning, in the air, at upwards of 20,000 r.p.m.
Normal production engines cannot hope to reach this output; only a very few specially tuned or one-off, hand-made, motors reach such outputs.
It is not disrespectful to E.D., or for that matter any other large motor manufacturer, to say their products can be likened to the family car. To cater for the out-and-out contest enthusiast there are manufacturers with limited production lines, who specialise in engines with a higher output per c.c. (sports cars), while at the top of the scale are the tuning/rebuild and one-off production people who specialise in the out-and-out racing motor (racing cars).
You will appreciate from these remarks that I have merely scratched the surface of an exceptionally interesting subject, which is, in fact, worth a book in itself. Not only from the motor design point of view, but also on the question of fuels — how many car enthusiasts would consider using 60, 70 or even 80 per cent. nitro-methane in their fuel mixes?
I am, Yours, etc., N. J. Butcher, Editor, Model Aircraft. London, W.1.
[In fairness to E.D., they made no attempt to put forward their engines as competition units. We realised we were merely scratching the surface of the subject. The idea was to whet the appetite of motor-racing enthusiasts for model c.i. engines. — Ed.]
“How Does the Volvo Rate”
Perhaps I may be able to help Mr. W. B. Horner by giving my impressions of the Volvo.
I took delivery in December last year and have so far covered 12,500 miles, of which about 1,000 have been on the Continent. I consider it to be an outstandingly fine motor car and am delighted with it in every way. It is tremendous fun to drive — the acceleration and road-holding are truly fantastic, the steering a positive joy, the turning circle of 32 ft. is a godsend for London parking, and an overall petrol consumption of 26 m.p.g. more than reasonable. The four-speed gearbox with synchromesh on all four is a honey — the ratios could not be improved upon, and the gear-lever is ideally placed. The driving position is extremely comfortable and I have never felt tired after a long run.
The only improvements I can imagine would be thinner door pillars, a manually-operated dip-switch (this admittedly being merely a personal preference), and disc brakes.
The brakes are, in fact, perfectly adequate for normal purposes, with no fade, but the Volvo permits — or perhaps I should say encourages — deceptively high cruising speeds and disc brakes would add to the joy of driving this delectable car.
People have said to me, “Yes, that’s all very well, but it is the heck of a price, isn’t it?” Well, all I can say, is that I cannot think of a car that I would rather have for the same price, and I am pretty sure that one is not made that combines all the Volvo’s good points at anything like the same price.
Finally, for the record, I would say that I have absolutely no connection with Volvo cars, nor their concessionaires, distributors, agents, etc.
I am, Yours, etc., Robin S. Howard. London, W.6.
Thank you for giving so much space to the Volvo owners who (for the most part) so enthusiastically wrote their experiences. I found the information most instructive, and hope other readers did also.
It seems a great pity we have to look to Sweden to provide a 1.6-litre car of “Alpine” performance with five seats, four doors and petrol economy, and that your less enchanted Volvo owner-correspondent thought of a German firm in connection with the ideal interior finish. Perhaps the connoisseurs are too few to be catered for domestically.
I am, Yours, etc., W. B. Horner. Barnes.
I think that many of your readers must be like me in that I am always more than interested in your road-tests and about five years ago, as a result of your comments, plus those of one or two owners whom I knew, I purchased a Volkswagen. This gave me complete satisfaction, a strenuous Continental holiday, and quite a bit of rallying for the 10 months I owned it (approximately 12,000 miles), and I only exchanged it for a new model when the twin-pipe one was introduced, which had greater interior accommodation. Also, I had always regretted not having the sliding roof and the new model had this. It, in turn, gave me 3½ years of absolutely troublefree, economical motoring, covering about 35,000 miles, and again included Continental touring and rallying — in fact, it was worked extremely hard at times and thrived on it. My total for repairs was a clutch spring and a couple of replacement bulbs and overall I got just under 40 to the gallon.
However, with a growing family it was decided that more room was necessary, and we reverted to a British car in the 2¼-2½ litre, over four-figure price category. This resulted in 15 months of purgatory, over which I prefer to draw a veil (but on which I could write a book!) and at considerable financial loss a further change was made. (I should mention this was not a car on which I can remember you reporting.)
Before this change was made I had decided I was going foreign again and the choice was between an ID19 Citroen, in which I had motored a little, and a Volvo 122S, of which I had no experience whatsoever. However, both had been reviewed by you and some of the other motoring journals in highly favourable terms, and the claims for the latter indicated it to be an outstanding vehicle. I spent roughly a fortnight in coming to a decision in which I had several test runs in both cars, studied their respective literature and the various road tests and drew up my own list of “pros” and “cons” covering each car, and in the end my choice was the Volvo. This is in no way disparaging to the Citroen but for my requirements the Volvo seemed the better choice.
My reason for writing is that so far your correspondence columns have carried no comments from your readers about the Volvo and I think some of mine may be of interest. Firstly, I have never for a minute regretted my choice and the more I drive it the more I like it. For saloon car motoring I have just never experienced anything similar in the past and when fully run-in I consider it will give the performance of most sports cars and will, in fact, better many. To date my mileage is just over 2,000, and I am still not trying to use anything like its full performance, but I have no doubt I could safely do so as the engine is bench-tested and partially run-in before delivery and the maker’s only instructions are not to use full power except in short bursts to begin with! The gearbox is a delight to use and has beautifully spaced ratios (all synchromesh), the steering is light and precise, the engine accessibility is incredibly good and the paintwork is tops. It is a car in which long runs can obviously be done quickly and comfortably and while, perhaps, one’s first impression of the driving seat is that it is rather hard, this proves to be a good fault as over a long distance it supports the back and prevents one sagging. So far, it has returned 36-38 m.p.g., and this has not been at sluggish speeds.
No doubt, you say, there must be snags or faults but as yet those which I have found are minor ones. When motoring in wet weather with the quarter-lights open water drips in, as they have no drain channel, and rain seems to blow in rather noticeably through slightly open windows. While mudflaps are shown all round on the road-test cars they are not included for the rear wheels. Similarly the parking lights mentioned on the test model are omitted (and with six-volt lighting these would perhaps be an advantage). For interior finish one has a choice of cloth and plastic upholstery or all plastic. If the former is chosen you get a centre arm-rest in the rear seat but you then must have a cloth headlining. If all plastic then no centre arm-rest but plastic headlining. I think a plastic headlining, irrespective of upholstery, is a “must” nowadays. Provision is made for safety belts which I would very much like, but at 15 guineas a pair this is surely an excessive charge. One fitting I would like to have seen as standard is a reverse light but this is being added and while jets for a screen washer are fitted the washer is not. I have added the Lucas electric one — it is most efficient. The fitting I must find fault with is the chrome strip on the steering wheel, and the chrome horn ring — both dazzle badly when the sun comes in from side or rear — I have painted them over a matt finish and would suggest to the makers that they alter this finish in the future.
I could continue much longer in my praise of the car — the immaculate finish of the engine is only one of many features, but I am not a publicity agent for Volvo A/B, so I will not press this theme.
I would, however, finish by commending British manufacturers to study this car very thoroughly because I feel that if it were to be produced in quantities (and I understand that relatively speaking its production is small) and to the present high standards, it would he an extremely serious competitor in foreign markets. Even so, I see over 6,000 sold in U.S.A. alone in four months.
I am, Yours, etc., G. D. W. Organ. Glasgow.
[This correspondence is now closed. — Ed.]
In your review of the new B.M.C. Minicars (September issue) you stated that these models had been exhaustively tested over a long period.
The first Mini-Minor has just arrived in this area and has aroused considerable interest. The first time the new owner took it out in the rain, however, he brought it back to the garage complaining of wet feet!
The car was put on the hoist and sealing compound rubbed into all joints in the hope that this will affect a cure.
I can vouch for the truth of this as I saw the car when it was on the hoist having its seams caulked.
Exhaustive testing, my foot!
I am, Yours, etc., S. H. W. Prince. Chepstow.
[And when driving the “World’s Most Exciting Small Car” I found it to live up to its reputation — part of the excitement being to see which foot got wet first! — Ed.]
It is interesting to read in the November issue how taken such a stern critic as the Editor is with the new B.M.C. baby cars. It seems to me, however, that comparisons can fairly be made with a well-established model, whose engine is a mere 3 c.c. bigger than the new modlels. This car has not been tested by you, but is very well known in its country of origin, and I quote figures from tests by the same (English) journal of it and the new Austin Se7en..
The older car has better acceleration (fractionally) in every one of the ranges 0-30, 0-40, 0-50 and 0-60, a maximum speed of 79.9 compared with 72.4 m.p.h., a better fuel consumption at steady speeds, ranging from 68 m.p.g. at 30 m.p.h. compared with 58.5, to 45.5 m.p.g. at 60 m.p.h. compared with 40.0, and a “touring consumption” of 46.5 compared with 43.5. When it is pointed out that the old model is a full 5/6-seater and weighs 16 cwt., compared with 11¾, a true picture of efficiency is shown, I think.
Another comparison shows how ideas of size and relative proportions change: the new Phantom V is said to be the largest car Rolls-Royce have ever made, and is, I suppose, a seven-seater at least, with a wheelbase of 12 ft. Yet until recently I owned a 1934 car with a wheelbase of 11 ft. 6 in. which was a mere two-seater, and was never considered a huge car; and, by the way, when this model was tested in 1932 by The Autocar it did 20-30 m.p.h. in top gear in 20 sec. flat, which seems an example of flexibility beyond the powers of present short-stroke engines.
I am, Yours, etc., D. A. Nisbet. Wetheral.
A Dissatisfied Customer
Before buying a Triumph Herald saloon I read D. R. Atkinson’s letter with interest, but dismissed it as being written by a person who, as you described, was “hard to please.” Now, however, as I have completed 3,000 miles my ideas have changed greatly.
I don’t consider myself as unduly hard to please, but the number of faults which have occurred with my Triumph make me wonder if I have spent my money wisely. The following is an account of the running of my car:
(1) On taking delivery of the Triumph the driver’s door would not close correctly and the window on the same side came out of its runners when wound up. One windscreen washer did not work and the other pointed to one side of the window.
(2) At approximately 600 miles the rear axle and one wheel bearing went, and had to be replaced. The rubber surround of the hoot came loose. At this time I found that the car leaked at the junction of both doors and body — this had to be corrected by inserting a strip of rubber at the junction.
(3) At approximately 1,600 miles both windows came out of their runners and could not be wound up. The rubber around the gear-lever split and is still waiting to be replaced. The rubber tip on the passenger’s sun vizor worked loose and was lost. The half-shaft and needle bearing on one side became, as the garage described, chewed up and had to be replaced.
(4) On the same day as the 3,000-mile service was completed the welding holding the top of the radiator came loose, so that the radiator almost fouled the fan. The rubber tube from the overflow pipe had to be removed during the repairs, and when replacement was attempted this tube split along its length due to the fact that the tube had a seam along which the split lengthened.
With regard to other points in Mr. Atkinson’s letter, the gear-lever has very occasionally jumped out of reverse and there is a slight squeak from the suspension. But I find that the road-holding is very good, the steering very light and easy to handle, also there is little vibration from the gear-lever at faster speeds. I also like the design and appearance of the car, and I am sure there is no car easier to park and turn round.
As one of your correspondents suggested that Mr. Atkinson should have written to the Triumph Motor Company, I decided to take this step. The reply I received was most unsatisfactory. They could only “regret that the car was causing concern and trust that their dealers would ensure a speedy rectification.”
Though all the faults I have mentioned (apart from the rubber around the gear-lever) have been rectified, a lot of pleasure in driving the Herald has now been lost by the ever constant thought, “I wonder what will go wrong next?”
I am, Yours, etc., G. J. Hobson. Malvern.
We were extremely surprised to read in the “Continental Notes” article of Motor Sport’s October issue, page 750, the remarks expressed by Mr. Jenkinson, concerning the Grand Prix of the United States F.1 race, scheduled to occur at Sebring on December 12th. 1959.
In particular, we refer to his reference to the event being held on what is claimed to be “an absurd airfield circuit.” We are compelled to wonder in what way the circuit is “absurd,” and more especially we question whether Mr. Jenkinson, in this instance, can speak with authority. The writer has been privileged to meet Mr. Jenkinson on several occasions — at several circuits, but never at Sebring. Even allowing for this lack of first-hand knowledge, surely Mr. Jenkinson has access to records and data which clearly reveal that the Sebring circuit is, in fact, a true road course for at least half of its distance. It is, of course, recognised as being a circuit which imposes a rigorous test of racing machinery — as in fact does any true road course — but the term “absurd ” leaves us bewildered.
Later in the article we find that the C.S.I. are criticised for permitting the event to take place so late in the season. We would respectfully point out that until a matter of a few weeks ago there was a distinct chance that the Morocco race would be run on a date even nearer the end of this year. With the increased world-wide activity and interest in Formula racing the time has passed when the “season” can be confined to the accepted European racing programme, which used to commence in April or May and finish in September. A glance at the recently published International Calendar for 1960 clearly reveals that the Grand Epreuves are spread over the entire year — January through to December: It is true that this year circumstances dictated that there would be a three-month interval between Monza and Sebring. We would, however, remind Mr. Jenkinson that when the C.S.I. approved the Sebring December date our friends in Morocco were expecting to run their G.P. event in October. Had this race taken place the interval would have been much less, and only reasonable time would have been available for the constructors to ready their cars for the journey to Sebring.
Why will the 1959 Champion Driver of the World have “such a short reign? ” Surely whoever receives this coveted title will “reign” throughout the year 1960.
Everyone is entitled to speak and write their opinions. As organisers of an annual Championship race we often read articles dealing with the races held at Sebring, some convey compliments and praise — others contain criticism, often justified. We especially take notice of the latter and always try to correct our faults. In the case of Mr. Jenkinson’s article, we feel that Sebring is unjustly treated, and, similarly, we think the reproach of the C.S.I. “who dropped a clanger of major proportions,” was an uncalled-for comment.
Everyone enjoys Mr. Jenkinson’s articles — in fact, anyone who takes pleasure in the sport of motor raring realises that he is perhaps the prince of auto journalism. No doubt you will let him read this letter, and it is hoped he will not mind our taking time to defend ourselves for what we regard as being unfair criticism.
With best wishes and congratulations to you, Mr. Boddy, as Editor of the finest auto sports magazine in circulation.
I am, Yours, etc., Reginald S. Smith, Race Secretary, A.R.C. of Florida, Inc. Florida.
[We include this letter to show that Motor Sport is not anti-Sebring, but it must be remembered that what Mr. Smith expresses are personal opinions, as were the remarks of our Continental Correspondent. — Ed.]
One Who Likes Renaults
D.S.J.’s report “Autumn in Paris” is now doubly interesting in view of the recent lifting of import restrictions on vehicles from France (amongst others). However, I feel that he must be taken to task over certain points connected with Renaults.
Firstly, he may well have felt apprehensive of the Dauphine-Gordini’s “flat-out performance” (which can be directly correlated with the ordinary Dauphine’s performance), but why on earth pass judgment on a car’s general standing almost solely, as it seems to me, on this one trait of performance. Renaults have never pretended that, in this respect, the Dauphine (types) were anything more than an excellent small, economical and comfy saloon; it is almost entirely fortuitous that some people (including Renault’s Competition Department, Gordini, Redele, Rudd, Downton, Peco and a host of others) have found it to be tunable, lowerable and virtually indestructable. How many major rallies has a Dauphine-type won outright and how many class awards has it collected in four short years — Monte Carlo, Alpine, and another recent one where they filled five out of the first six places — need one go on?
The recent suspension modifications (Aerostable) and even shorter gear-lever travel, produced by new gear-teeth profiles, incorporated since Motor Sport’s September comments on the “quickest changes yet encountered on a production saloon” (p. 67I) — all at no extra cost — should indicate that D.S.J. is setting his sights ridiculously high, especially in this latter department, and is presumably trying to compare in his mind’s eye the Renault change with the Porsche one. This may be all very well, critically speaking, but it should be borne most carefully in mind that one pays over twice as much for a Porsche than one does even for the Gordini version of the Dauphine, and if it isn’t better in the cog-swapping department then you’ve bought the wrong mount. It’s the old argument of hand-built versus mass-produced. I fully agree that the long gear-lever travel is initially disconcerting, but after 15,000 miles in my Renault 750 I just don’t notice it and can still make a quicker change than almost anything else on the road even more sporting than me. Anyway, it is infinitely superior to the B.M.C., Ford and Standard steering-column atrocities or the Ford floor lever. The inverting of the Dauphines and Florides is quite unnecessary — reminiscent of irresponsible clots trying to make a good little un go as well as a good big ‘un. To drive a normal car in such a manner presupposes Porsche performance at Renault prices, not to mention incipient irresponsibility.
Also, D.S.J. makes the Alpine Renault sound like a “hotted” Dauphine or Floride. Whilst he may be aware of the nature of the car, I venture to think that many Motor Sport readers are not. It bears as much resemblance to the Dauphine or Floride as the Monraisse/Feret Dauphine does to a standard one (except in shape). It is a “one-off,” polyester resin/fibreglass coachbuilt body, bonded to a strengthened Renault steel “punt,” and is available as standard or in various degrees of tune. The one which John Bolster tested for Autosport (16/1/59) had an 845-c.ce. engine with 903-c.c. liners and suitable accoutrements to 1063 specification, giving 59 b.h.p. at 6,250 r.p.m., and the five-speed Pons-Redele unsynchronised box did, he admits, “require a modicum of skill” (sic !). With a top speed of 103 m.p.h. plus, I feel D.S.J.’s Porsche would have some difficulty (except on an Autobahn) losing one, provided that someone who had learnt how to change gear was driving it.
Finally, this is merely an indication that production Renaults are meant primarily to be transport; what sporting characteristics an owner thinks he sees in them is his business. The castigation which D.S.J. gave them is rather unfair, and even unbalanced when this is taken into account. The Dauphine was a logical development in economical transport from the beloved 750 Renault (which, God wot, is a little left behind now, after a decade of production), and should therefore be considered entirely as such in its various bodily guises. Above all, in towns the Dauphine, with its outstanding lock, cornering powers and docility, coupled with economy, has few equals today, save for the new B.M.C.s and the Herald.
Please continue to print such an excellent magazine, designed expressly (I often think) to give me my monthly meal of pleasurable palpitations and angry apoplexies!
I am, Yours, etc., H. G. Mackenzie-Wintle. Leytonstone.