I have just read the article “Sports Car Races of 1951,” in the November issue. A cryptic sign “WB” indicates authorship. I beg his pardon for saying he is talking a lot of nonsense.
First, he includes in his survey of 1951 racing a purely local event of doubtful significance and furthermore gives it equal prestige with an event 24 times as long over a more difficult course. Mass production baby cars lap the Silverstone circuit flat-out with considerable ease for one hour. I can’t see how it compares with any of the events tabulated, in importance.
Second, the British Empire Trophy was a national event in which the winning car was outstandingly more potent and expensive in every way than any of its competitors; if it had failed to win easily it would have disgraced itself. This event was also given equal prestige with the gruelling Targa Florio where the world’s best compete. This makes nonsense of WB’s credit system.
Third, surely the most consistent car is that which wins more of the biggest races than any other ? And surely places after third are of little importance in determining the most successful car.
Finally, he compares indirectly a 2-litre car designed specifically for racing, of very stark design with room for just two and of minimum weight, with a three-seater fast touring saloon of nearly double the weight, and with a relatively low stressed 2.0-litre engine, in which comparison he finds the latter disappointingly unequal !
I am, Yours, etc,
JP Harrison, Ilkley.
[The Fraser-Nash had to beat a stiff handicap in the British Empire Trophy Race. The marking system sought to find the most consistently successful sports car in the leading sports-car races of 1951, not the best sports car—Ed]