N.B. – Opinions expressed are those of our correspondents and Motor Sport does not necessarily associate itself with them. – Ed.
As one of the oldest of the Rolls-Royce customers—my experience beginning with my father’s 1913 Silver Ghost and continuing with my 1937 Phantom III, with overdrive gearbox—I would like to come at once to the company’s defence, when Mr. Gretton complains that the present Rolls-Royce should be called “not the best in the world but the dearest.”
One must remember that, after deduction of purchase tax, the company receives no more today than the £3,300 which an H. J. Mulliner Phantom III cost in 1937.
Meantime the value of the pound is reduced to one-third so that there can in the nature of things only be in the Silver Cloud one third of the real value there was in the Mulliner Phantom III
The Silver Cloud only represents a pre-war value of about £1,000, when the smallest Rolls-Royce cost £1,600 – £1,700, and the economies which the company has made are imposed upon them by these factors.
I enclose for your interest a report which I wrote some time ago setting out the comparison more fully.
You will appreciate that there is no major difference between the Silver Cloud Rolls and the “S” model Bentley.
I conclude with the same words in which I concluded my report— one can only congratulate the makers upon the two remarkable achievements (1) that they made in 1937 a car so advanced in design, materials and performance as the Phantom III, upon which nearly twenty years have made so little mark, and (2) that they make in 1956, in spite of all economic difficulties, so beautifully running a machine that nothing else is really comparable to it in the aesthetic appreciation of good machinery and beautiful design.
I am, Yours, etc.,
Denis Becker, Chairman. Becker & Co., Ltd. – London, E.C.4.
Mr. Becker’s analysis follows:—
Phantom III (with overdrive gearbox) 3 BT-65 H. J. Mulliner, sports limousine. Prime cost £3,300 May 1937. Speedometer reading 209,000. Average petrol consumption 10-11 m.p.g.
” S’ model Bentley all-steel saloon 1956. Prime cost £3,295. actual cost £4,943 (purchase tax £1,648 17s.). Speedometer reading 14,900. Average petrol consumption 14-15 m.p.g.
It it first desirable to obtain some common form of financial value in comparing the two cars. The value of the £ in 1956 as against 1937 is officially agreed at approximately one-third. In terms of 1937, therefore, one is comparing a car of £3,300 at 1937 prime value with the Bentley “S” at £1,100 (or alternatively one is comparing a car of £9,900 at 1956 prime value–purchase tax would be approximately £4,950, and selling price £14,850 – with the Bentley “S” £3,300, purchase tax £1,648, selling price £4,943).
Faced with these figures one can begin to understand the magnitude of the problem with which the makers were confronted, and one can only be filled with admiration by the degree in which their efforts to produce a better running car at a third of the price has succeeded.
The financial change was accompanied by a political change of equal severity. The 50-h.p. Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost and Phantom I, II and III were made to the requirements of the heads of English firms and families (the company’s literature was accustomed to use the word Caput for the 50s and Cadet for the 25s). This English taste was confirmed by the Indian Maharajahs who were the mainstay of the export market. But the English aristocrat and the Indian Maharajah are alike brought low and now the arbiter in such matters must be the American “Mom,” as the only type of customer remaining in sufficient numbers to absorb an economic production for export.
In deference to this supreme lady the newer car has moved far from the original Rolls-Royce idiom. The Bentley suspension is much smoother and softer than in the earlier car and much of this effect appears to be due to the return to balloon tyres (19 lb. front pressure) which were much in vogue in the Rolls-Royce models of the late nineteen-twenties, and were abandoned later because of the price which had to be paid in braking and cornering.
The provision of stabilisers on the Bentley has not entirely overcome these disadvantages, and a first and immediate impression on turning from the older car to the newer is the much spongier feeling of the Bentley, on which the gearing of the steering has also been lowered to an advanced degree in accordance with American practice. The balloon tyres, however, largely cancel out the advantages of the lighter steering, so that, except at very low speeds, when the Phantom is heavier, the steering of the two cars are about the same weight.
While the change in suspension is of advantage in traffic and in the aesthetic enjoyment of the extreme silence and smoothness of the new car, it certainly has to be paid for at speed, and the Phantom III has much advantage in braking, cornering, and the general feeling of strength and stability at high speeds. The balloon tyres on the Bentley, although inflated to pressures above those recommended, roll and screech upon a dry road disconcertingly. Against this, the Phantom III is definitely rougher suspended at low speeds, and one misses the extreme smoothness of the Bentley.
Top speed attainable. on the Oxford by-pass is 110 on the Bentley clock and 105 on the Phantom III’s. The Bentley’s acceleration is a little faster and it can pass the Phantom on a straight road at any time, but by no great margin. It was not possible to improve on the Phantom Ill’s best time on a familiar run to Wales, since the Bentley’s superiority in acceleration was offset by its inferiority in cornering and braking on winding roads. In one’s mind both cars are seen to be of comparable performance and of soundly Rolls-Royce engineering, the older one tending towards the style of the original Speed Six Bentley, and the newer reaching out toward the Cadillac, as is to be expected in this day and age.
The American style self-changing gearbox is a sheer delight on the Bentley, and completely compensates for the loss of the extra six cylinders and the consequent high torque of the larger engine at low engine speeds. One was, however, surprised on returning to the Phantom to find how little offended she was when one inevitably forgot to put out the clutch and brought her to a virtual standstill. She still pulled away from 4 or 5 miles an hour in direct gear without fuss, and the figure of 17 seconds from 10-60 in direct gear does not in any case leave a vast amount of room for improvement.
In traffic the self-changing box is most restful. At top changing speeds after a “kick-down” the Bentley engine appears to be over-revving considerably, 70 in third representing, one understands, 140 in top gear? The acceleration in third gear is truly electric.
The Bentley engine has one real technical advance over the Phantom—the large central inlet valve over the cylinders—and its higher compression. The effect of an equivalent compression-ratio upon the 12-cylinder engine would be most interesting to observe.
The shock-absorber control on the Bentley is confined to “on” and off” on the rear axle only, while the Phantom’s is variable and a good deal more positive on all four corners.
In the same way the chassis lubrication system on the Bentley is limited to the front suspension, while in the Phantom Ill it covers the whole chassis. These are sad but unavoidable economies, along with the loss of the Rolls-Royce front brakes and electrical equipment, the beautifully-splined hubs with the single nut, and the centrally-controlled hydraulic jacks.
All these have given way to conventional accessories in the American pattern, even the dynamo being belt-driven, and an old Rolls-Royce owner sighs as he sees a wheel-change involving twelve separate operations.
The new ventilation system is clearly made necessary by the curved windscreen, which sets up a powerful slipstream by the front windows and makes a great deal of noise if any of them are opened in the least degree. One is therefore recommended to close all windows and rely on the ventilation system. On the car tested this was not found to keep the car cool enough on a rather fine spring day. One returned with some relief to the old flat windscreen of the Phantom. The front windows make no noise at any opening, being quite plain and free of the troublesome little front centrally-hinged section so inescapable these days.
Strong springs on the Phantom windscreen wipers clean the screen at all times without benefit of water sprays, another advantage of the flat screen.
The bodywork is not really comparable. A pre-war H. J. Mulliner body is in a class apart. The steel body of the Bentley is beautifully designed and one welcomes back the aluminium panelling, but nearly every screw on the locks, etc. in the car tested was loose, and some heavy internal bracket in the offside front door rattled and eventually fell right off inside the door en route. It did not, however, affect the window winding or lock controls. One was glad to see the complete disappearance of all electric controls from windows and sorry to see the beautifully-plated hinged petrol filler cap on the Phantom give way to a nasty little screw-on affair on a wire, without so much as a touch of chromium. The rat-trap device over the filler cap has to be seen to be believed, and the emergency wire control inside the boot would have given good Sir Henry an immediate and very proper apoplexy.
Light finger pressure in the middle of the Bentley’s roof produced considerable deflection, while the surface of the leather had already disappeared on the driver’s arm-rest round the edges, and the driver’s seat was cracked and “cobwebbed.”
In fact the impression of uniformly beautiful design but less fortunate materials was inescapable, and, one sees, must remain inescapable in the financial circumstances that the company receives, in 1937 value, only two-thirds of the price of the old 4-1/4 Bentley. At least the necessary economies have not affected the running of the car.
One can only congratulate the makers upon the two remarkable achievements (1) that they made in 1937 a car so advanced in design, materials and performance as the Phantom III, upon which nearly twenty years have made so little mark and (2) that they make in 1956, in spite of all economic difficulties, so beautifully running a machine that nothing else is really comparable to it in the aesthetic appreciation of good machinery and beautiful design.
As one who in the past 12 years has owned and run fifteen pre-war Rolls-Royce and two post-war Rolls-Royce cars, and having spent a lifetime in the Trade, I fully endorse C. Gretton’s remarks.
I have, for the last 12 years, run a 1923 20-h.p. [photo above-Ed.] which has only had one previous owner; this old lady has run nigh on 500,000 miles, at a cost that just would not be believed (less than £100 for the whole 12 years). It never gives the slightest trouble, will tow anything, and will still leave many post-war cars standing in the matter of speed and climbing.
I tried a 1948 model for a few months, also a 1950, but I soon went back to a 1938, and on to my present vehicle, a 1939 Wraith. The handling, comfort, the chrome finish—in fact, the whole superiority over its post-war counterparts—is such that I would take a lot of persuasion to ever take up a later model, irrespective of price.
I am, Yours, etc.,
G.D. EMPSON – Hull.
As a reader of Motor Sport for 14 years, I have often been tempted to join the various battles in the Readers Letters page, but never so much as since reading the article on Rolls-Royce initially featured in The People and commented on in the March issue of Motor Sport. My first reaction to Mr. Gretton’s article was that he had picked a “good” subject, purely to further the sales of the paper he represents; and still doubt whether he was genuinely serious in his criticisms.
The main theme is: Is the Rolls-Royce still “The Best Car in the World”? I am in no doubt at all. My answer is “Yes,” and for the following reasons.
I have a vintage Rolls Twenty (1929) which is in splendid condition, and the superb engineering design is apparent everywhere you look. One single point will serve to illustrate the acknowledged finesse of workmanship: the brake linkage throughout has never been renewed and there is not the least degree of wear or play anywhere—and this, mark you, is nearing its 30th birthday.
This accuracy of workmanship is still paramount today: in fact, more so, considering Rolls-Royce have some of the finest testing machinery in the world (which was not quite the case in 1929).
The never-ending research for perfection, to the last nut and bolt, has not been deterred by the fitting of false radiator caps, etc. As a vintage enthusiast I naturally decry items like false hub caps and smaller wheels, but only as a lover of vintage machinery. I am not blind to the fact that the 20-in, wheel is not so advantageous in the modern motor car, and if wheel-nuts do the job as well as the Royce hub-nut I see no argument here at all. One can obviously assume that Rolls-Royce did not make these alterations without weighty discussions and after much research.
I have only mentioned a few points here; one could go on indefinitely, but these serve as a good “sample.” The history of Rolls-Royce is unsurpassed for engineering achievement. They have never rested on their laurels.” I cannot say they are doing this now—which is how I interpret Mr. Gretton’s implication
It is interesting to note that I am writing this letter exactly 54 years later, to the day—almost to the hour—that the first Royce car motored out of the works and down Cook Street, Manchester.
I am, Yours, etc.,
R. R. Langford – Solihull
I read with interest your article in the March issue of Motor Sport, and as an ex-owner of a 20/25 Rolls-Royce, a 4-1/4-litre Bentley and subsequently a Mark VI Bentley, may I add some comments?
Comparisons are always fascinating in this hobby of ours, other things being equal, but Gretton makes some misleading statements. The Rolls-Royce costs £3,795, inflated to £5,693 by purchase tax: nor does he take into account the heavy depreciation in the purchasing power of the pound, which does not make the present basic cost of a Rolls-Royce out of proportion to its pre-war counterpart.
However much one may regret the passing of the beautiful electrical equipment, to mention but one of the many pre-war exclusive Derby-made components, one must realise that today the cost of production of such items would be prohibitive in a highly competitive market, and Rolls do not wish to make cars at a price at which only a Middle East oil sheik could afford.
The fact that in a world where luxury articles are steadily on the decline and where craftsmanship is becoming a lost art, Rolls still sell large numbers of cars, which must demonstrate that they still produce the best otherwise why do they not go out of business like some of their competitors in this country and on the continent.
I am, Yours, etc.,
C. K. SHONE – London. S.W.1.
At the end of the article on the current Rolls-Royce cars, you solicit comments from those who have been or are owners. It is not worth much, but for the record, let me say that I am now owner of three synchromesh Rolls-Royce 40/50 Continentals (1953-4-5), and that these cars are so far superior to the current standard saloons as to make comparison impossible. I agree with the article on all points.
I am, Yours, etc..
Peter van Gerbig – New York.
* * * *
I think it is about time that the current trend of headlamp hoods is exposed for what it is—nothing but a stylist’s gimmick. It has already been proved that the presence of these things on my car (Riley 1.5) reduce maximum speed by 2-3 m.p.h., surely enough to disillusion any enthusiast. However, the real menace was revealed one snowy night last week, when the hoods blocked solid about every five minutes, needing a stop to scoop them out. Otherwise—no light. Surely the manufacturers should test new ideas under all conditions before slavishly copying the stylists’ latest unfunctional decoration.
I am, Yours, etc..
C. Harrison – Ingoe.
* * * *
Singer – o.h.v. or o.h.c.?
I do not see that Singer enthusiasts have cause for fear or regret (reference, “Thin end of standardisation wedge.”). Singers, as indeed Rileys, to take but two of many examples, have unfortunately already lost all claim to individuality. I do not, therefore, consider that the replacement of the o.h.c. engine with one that is quieter, quicker, and more economical is a retrograde step.
I am, Yours, etc.,
O.R. Newton-Masters – Coventry.
* * * *
What the public wants
Sir, The Daily Express has just published the winning line for a competition to establish points of sales appeal. The object being judged was a Sunbeam Rapier. The winning line:—
(1) Smart, modern appearance.
(2) Sturdy, all-steel body.
3) Economical fuel consumption.(!)
(4) Luxuriously appointed interior.
(5) Two-speed windscreen wipers.
Wait for it, we’re coming to the car at last:
(6) Light and precise steering.
(7) Short-stick centre floor gear-change.(?)
(8) Overdrive on third and fourth gears.
(9) Top speed 90 m.p.h.
(10) Outstanding roadholding qualities.
(11) Wide choice of colour schemes.
(12) All seats within wheelbase.
I’m nearly bereft of words—how can a national paper, in all seriousness, uphold the view that the motoring public prefer appearance to roadholding, and an all-steel body (what saloon hasn’t these days?) to decent steering? Though dog does not eat dog on Fleet Street, could I prevail on you to remonstrate with the Express, or at least comment on this sad state of affairs in your next editorial?
I am, Yours, etc.,
D. Negodaeff – Loughton.
* * * *
The coming tests
I am rather amazed by the news regarding the 10-year-old car rule which has filtered through to here; not so much in principle, but in the manner in which it is to be applied.
It would seem to me that the government intend to open up one of the biggest rackets” for garages since the waiting period for petrol rationing after Suez. To admit that the inspection itself will be profitless and will have to be covered by the cost of repairs is tantamount to saying that cars will be faulted regardless by the more unscrupulous places. Again, what is to prevent a clean bill of health being obtained by the necessary greasing of the mechanic/tester’s hand?
If a vehicle is given a certificate of health I assume it to be completely roadworthy, and for what possible reason should it wear out in a twelve-month? This applies very particularly to vintage cars. If we admit or assume that such could happen, then carry idiocy to its full limit and inspect new vehicles after a similar period.
I would say that the time has come for those august bodies, the R.A.C. and A.A., to do something, aided by the garages, motoring publications and the motorists themselves. The garages, I notice, have to apply for appointment; then let the R.A.C. and A.A.. besides making the usual representations to Parliament, withdraw their recommendations to any garage applying; let the motorists withdraw their patronage of any garage applying; and, above all, let the garages fail to apply for appointment. If the Minister of Transport pursues this policy in an attempt to improve road conditions instead of spending the road tax for that purpose, then let him devote the money to the building of government-owned and staffed inspection stations, where an inspection can be had entirely free from bias and after criticism. Knowing the speed at which the official body winds itself into action it will then be 1968.
Finally, the wrecks should be weeded out at the first inspection, assuming the owners have the audacity to present them. The certified fit should be good for five years more service.
I congratulate you on a first-rate magazine.
I am, Yours, etc.,
J.K. Abbott – Malaya.
* * * *
May I be allowed to answer queries and criticisms of Mr. Gayfer to my original letter in the March issue.
My statement concerning performance was correct; I check this technically, and not just by general feeling. My car is maintained by myself in perfect condition. The electrics are always clean and polished, and the timing is set in the recognised manner with a stop-watch.
At 98,000 miles, when I realised what the trouble was, I adjusted all tappets and it was then evident that the valve in question was only opening 30 per cent, of the distance of the others. I still decided to carry on with my timing check, which I do every 5,000 miles. I have a stretch of road, slightly uphill, which I use on a calm day. The fastest run has been 43 sec. On this last check the time was 43-1/2 sec., approximately 1 per cent, down on performance. This is all carried out in top gear, therefore no gear-changing can affect the check. The only explanation I can give for this is a straight-through silencer which creates no back pressure.
With a worn cam the valve clearance has to be maintained with a very small gap, otherwise the opening is more seriously reduced.
The sump holds 6 pints and 7-1/2 pints if the filter is changed. This was changed approximately every 5,000 miles, showing that I do also rely on a clean -filter.
Agreed the cost of an engine would be arrived at in 60,000 miles, but this was an easy payment method; my engine was always 100 per cent and I had not the inconvenience of fitting and running-in a new engine. The condition of the head when decoked at 50,000 miles was such that I could scrape the carbon (with the exception of the exhaust valves) off with my finger nail. The rocker gear had no sludge and required no cleaning. If one prefers to decoke more frequently, the cost each time, if done by a garage, is about £7.
I also have evidence, not from my car but from friends who do not change their oil as often as I—and I feel that it is better to err in my direction than in the way of Mr. Gayfer.
Let Mr. Gayfer drive this mileage on the Yorkshire Moors and see if he will get away with only two springs and my tyre mileage. On one rally I overtook a Y-type M.G., the owner of which later admitted that his car, due to suspension and clearance, could not get within 10 m.p.h. of speed on this type of road.
I have made tests over a number of driving years, i.e.. 24 years and over 500,000 miles, and found that if I do not exceed 50 m.p.h. I can get double the tyre life compared with driving up to 70 m.p.h. Cornering on the limit will scrub tyres, something I do not do—one can corner fast and correctly without dragging the car around. It is continual high speeds generating heat which creates the greatest normal wear.
I have tried all makes of tyres and find very little difference in the life of any. I dispose of my tyres when the tread is still complete and not when they are bald.
As to my driving habits and adhesion of the car, I find that with 25 p.s.i. all round pressure I have never had the rear end swing out of control and the car has been used every day in all conditions, and—apart from the last period of snow when roads were completely blocked—I have never failed to climb the hills to get to my work in the Pennines. Also I have not put a single scratch on the car.
The radiator was ruined due to flushing the system last summer, prior to a long journey. The sealing blocked the fins and I had no time to have this attended to, So I had a replacement radiator fitted.
The engine has never run hot. I have to blank the radiator in summer sometimes to maintain a running temperature of 180 deg. F. How one could get 98,000 miles from an engine which had binding rings in its early life, as Mr. Gayfer suggests, I fail to see.
Incidentally, my present journey to my first call each morning is 13 miles from home. This run is on country lanes, has 26 almost 90-deg. bends, numerous slower bends, not half-a-mile of straight, and rises over 500 ft., involving plenty of gear-changing. This run I do in 20-23 min, each day. If any car will give 40,000 miles tyre life on this type of running I would be pleased to hear of it.
I am, Yours, etc.
H. Lang – Horbury.
* * * *
Stock-car tactics at Brands Hatch
It was the final race of the Brands Hatch Easter Monday meeting which shook me into writing this. It concerns the duel between Mr. Don Parker and Mr. A. V. Cowley. It appeared to me, and to many others in the main grandstand, that Cowley, after a shunt with Parker, waited for him and deliberately rammed him. He may have been provoked, as both men had acted a little foolishly in the opening laps, but the result of Cowley’s action could easily have been tragic. Such a lack of self-control and of the sportsmanship which is usually prevalent on the circuit was appalling to see. I consider that some action should be taken on this matter, and certainly an inquiry should be conducted by the club concerned in the running of the meeting (the B.R.S.C.C.).
I should like to add that the marshals appeared less competent than one would expect at such a meeting, and that the organisation of the event was below standard.
I am, Yours, etc.,
P. J. Moon – London, S.E. 12.
* * * *
Versus the rest . . .
Mr. F. A. Shaw’s letter leaves me shattered at his ignorance. If the Volkswagen has roadholding like “an empty double-decker ‘bus” and is so sluggish compared to a Morris Minor 1000, as he claims, I wonder why VWs were placed first, and two equal second out of a field of three Minor 1000s, three A35s, three Fords, a Standard Ten and a Renault, in the recent hill-climb jointly organised by the Mid-Thames, Mid-Surrey, and Harrow Car Clubs at Harleyford. If he had seen the frantic axle tramp and wheel lifting which the British products seemed to excel in, perhaps he would have been compelled to change his views.
It is surely also rather significant that in the next class (up to 1,500-c.c. Production Saloons) the times clocked by the VWs were only bettered by a Borgwarcl. And even in the class above that, which included saloons up to 3-1/2-litres, the Borgward’s time was not bettered. In fact, only two cars in this class managed to put up a better time than the fastest VW. Modified cars, by the way, had to run in the next class up, so these results are not due to any freakish tuning.
Admittedly the track was wet, but surely the British designer (sic) does not only cater for dry weather motoring? No, it is high time he took his head out of the sand and seriously turned his attention to i.r.s. and sensible weight distribution.
I am, Yours, etc.,
G. P. Howard – Kingston Vale.
* * * *
. . . After 100,000 miles
I was most interested to see reference to your VW in the recent copy of Motor Sport and note you have covered 50,000 miles. I obtained my car about the same date and have, as you will see, covered 100,000 miles.
I felt you might be interested to know how I had fared during the period, and therefore I have taken the liberty of enclosing the various points, set out on a mileage basis.
Many thanks for continuing the high standard of Motor Sport over the years.
I am, Yours, etc.,
John F. G. Maclagan – Rotherham.
Mr. MacLagan’s analysis follows:
Registered: July 25th, 1954.
Mileage covered (to date): 100,900.
Fuel consumption average: 34 m.p.g. overall.
Oil consumption: 1 pint per 1,500 miles.
No oil ever added between oil changes. The engine has been decarbonised once—at 75,000 miles, and wear in the bores was two thous. of an inch.
Plugs and points replaced every 14,000 miles.
Gearbox, final drive, rear torsion bars, all bearings, original.
Steering, trailing-arms, stub-axle pins and bushes, all bearings, etc. original.
Bodywork, cellulose, etc., in very good condition, no rattles audible.
Electric wiring and switches, etc., original.
Battery replaced at 75,000 miles.
New horn fitted at 100,000 miles.
Two fan belts, at 40,000 and 83,000 miles.
Two silencers, at 42,000 and 81,000 miles.
Tyres – First set at 43,000 miles. Second set at 82,000 miles. Third set, now on car, 35 per cent. worn.
Two speedometer cables, 30,000 and 87,000 miles.
Brakes relined once at 65,000 miles.
Set of reconditioned shock-absorbers, and two front torsion-bars fitted at 75,000 miles.
One windscreen wiper motor at 40,000 miles.
Hot-spot induction became porous at 45,000 miles: replaced with a modified type of induction to overcome this fault.
One clutch cable replaced at 80,000 miles.
Whilst drawing up this list, I decided to try the acceleration of the car, from speedometer and stop-watch; three runs for each test under wet road conditions.
0-30 m.p.h. … 7.5 sec.
0-50 m.p.h. … 17.5 sec.
0-60 m.p.h. … 32.0 sec.
From these figures it will be noted the car is still motoring excellently and does not appear to have lost its original performance.
Of the 25 cars I have owned it has been the most dependable, enjoyable and economical. It has set an amazing standard by which I shall judge any car of a similar price that I may own in future. However, I still look forward to driving the VW for many miles to come.
Jaguar continental rally
As a contrast to the many exhaustive contests of driving skills so prevalent in the motor sporting calendar these days the Jaguar Drivers’ Club are staging a recreational rally to Spain.
The purpose of the rally is to offer members of the club an entertaining event for pleasure motoring over a beautiful and interesting route. The exercise is called the Sherry Rally and will start on May 26th at San Sebastian and finish in Seville on May 31st. The rally is open to all members of the Jaguar Drivers’ Club driving Jaguar cars and the route will be via Chartres and Bordeaux, where entrants will be entertained at a chateau, and then to San Sebastian where the rally proper begins. The route then takes members via Pamplona and Zaragosa, with a morning for sight-seeing in Zaragosa. The next stop is Madrid with a whole day spent exploring the city; Cordoba and Valdpenas are then the next halts with the final lap to Seville being made on May 30th. On May 31st the cars go in convoy to Jerez de la Frontera where, in the bodegas of the House of Mackenzie, the sherry importers, the entrants are presented with bottles of sherry and treated to a ceremonial luncheon followed by an Andalusian party.
The cost for one car and driver with all expenses paid is estimated at between £90 and £120 and additional passengers, £35 a head. Further details are obtainable from John Chandos Ltd., 8. Telegraph Street, London, E.C.2.—I. G.