Not two but three . . .

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Sir,

Shame! The article written by E. L. W. (when are we going to drop the habit of using initials and use names?) entitled “Trials Topics” does not come up to the standard of accuracy one associates with Motor Sport. To qualify, a competitor requires two placings within the first THREE in any of the qualifying events or three placings within the first six.

Most cars are fitted with Ford 93A 1,172 C.C. engines and not the 100E-model which is not only heavier but does not have the torque at low revs, with which the older engine is blessed. Though the Ford 8/10 front axle beam is invariably used it is usually fitted with much lighter hubs, both Austin 7 and Morris Minor being favourites. Though a Ford “A” bracket is used for the location of the back axle very few cars actually use a Ford axle, the favourite in this case being an Austin 8 component which is very much lighter.

I feel that an article illustrating [see centre-spread—ED.] and accurately describing a number of the current “mud pluggers” is now long overdue and would be undoubtedly welcomed by a goodly percentage of your readers.

Bramhall, Cheshire. Roy N. FLETCHER.

[E. L. W. replies :— Tut, tut. I can only bow my head in shame over the slip of the pen regarding the qualifying placings—in fact my workings have been based on the correct formula as pointed out by Mr. Fletcher. The choice of engines is limited now and although Mike Cannon, builder of the Cannon-Ford cars, prefers the slightly smaller E93A Ford unit, these are becoming harder to obtain and 100E units are appearing with the Ford Eight cylinder head to increase the compression ratio. In addition to the Ford back axle and Austin Eight axle, other axles do appear from time to time, including the pre-war Wolseley Hornet axle, which is an even lighter pressing, whereas the Ford is a casting of quite stout proportions. On the subject of running gear, the variety of wheels used so is wide now and the origin so remote (note the alloy wheel on Alex Francis’ Alexis on this month’s front cover) that some drivers have given up carrying a spare, while to comply with certain Clubs’ regulations, one or two cars have appeared with an autocycle or moped sufficing for the spare wheel !]