Letters From Readers, November 1962

Author

admin

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

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

N.B.—Opinions expressed are those of our Correspondents and “Motor Sport” does not necessarily associate itself with them.—Ed.

NO MORE FORDS

Sir,

I note that the majority of London motorists favour a Ford car and I wonder if they realise the risk they are taking, or do Londoners get better service than we provincials, in running a Dagenham-built car ? I have had three reasonably good Fords in the last three years but have recently had an unpleasant experience, which has resulted in me vowing never again to run a Ford car.

I operate a Consul, owned by my employers, which was delivered on April 13th, 1961. On the 15th February this year, after 23,600 miles, a con-rod detached itself and broke through the side of the cylinder block. The car, up to this time, had given very little trouble with the exception of a clutch which had been replaced a fortnight earlier and a petrol pump which had been replaced, under warranty, about six months earlier. The car had been regularly serviced by Ford Agents and the cylinder head had never been removed.

Following the breakdown the car was towed to Messrs. A. E. Harris Ltd., Cardiff, where I had an account, and a replacement engine was fitted in about eight working hours, a Saturday afternoon and Sunday intervening. This was very satisfactory but a number of parts were fitted which I consider were not necessary. These included a new clutch assembly, for which I was charged £5 15s. as against £3 17s. 6d. a fortnight earlier. On querying this I was told that if I hadn’t wanted it I should have said so as it is supplied as standard with a replacement engine. A new petrol pump was fitted; the only explanation I can obtain for this was that they thought it was necessary. A week later, after spending the night at a hotel with the car standing outside, I discovered that the cooling system was solid—plain water having been returned to the engine although there was anti-freeze in it originally. The garage were “sorry” about this—I wonder what they would have done if another block had been cracked. The whole job, including the tow, cost £82 18s. 4d. plus fresh anti-freeze and the loss of a morning’s work while the engine was thawed out. The “broken” engine was returned to Fords for examination with a claim for reimbursement due to supply of faulty material. After four months I have received a credit note from Fords for £25, but no explanation of the fault. All efforts to get any more recompense have been met with the reply that it is considered that I have been treated very reasonably considering that the car was out of the warranty period and the mileage done.

I don’t consider that I have been reasonably treated. Fortunately for me the vast majority of the bill is paid by my employers but if I was a private motorist the £57 I would have had to find would have put me off the road. If this is the sort of service offered by Ford of Dagenham and their agents then I don’t want to know them and I would advise anyone considering buying a Ford to think twice before doing so if they want it to do more than 25,000 miles.

Bridgend.                                                                                                                                      A. J. MORGAN.

[A copy of this letter was sent to the Ford Motor Company for their comments; they did not have the courtesy to reply.—ED.]

 

HOW MANY BRIGHTON SPRINTS?

Sir,

Your report of the Brighton Speed Trials refers to them as the 57th of the series.

This implies that the first event was held in 1906 and run every year thereafter without a break for the first or second World Wars, or that the original speed trial at Brighton was held in 1900 and subsequently every year apart for a break of six years from 1914 to 1919 inclusive. Obviously these sprints could not have taken place throughout the Second World War, and I always thought they commenced in 1925, so how do you justify their 57th appearance ?

Camberley.                                                                                                                                            J. CASTLE.

[Having no idea of how many times the Prince of Watering Places has been the scene of Speed Trials, I gave instructions for the report to be headed “A Day at Brighton.” However, “E. L. W.” ignored this, so it is only fair he should explain. He replies : “The 1962 Brighton Speed Trials, listed in the official programme as ‘the 57th Brighton Speed Trials,’ in fact celebrates the 57th anniversary of the Speed Trials. Perusal of the 1961 programme points out that that year was the anniversary of the 56th. However, the person compiling this year’s programme, in addition to mis-spelling two competitors’ names, failed to clarify this point.—E. L. W.” Well, that’s his get-out; it does show you shouldn’t trust a programme. In fact, the first Speed Trial along the famous Madeira Drive was held in 1905, when Earp’s 90-h.p. Napier clocked 47.6 sec. over the s.s. mile and 92.88 m.p.h. over a f.s. kilometre. On account of objections by local residents the next event wasn’t held until 1923 (F.T.D. by J. A. Joyce’s A.C.). The event was repeated in 1924, when Norris’ Morgan 3-wheeler made F.T.D. in 16.4 sec. for the s.s. quarter-mile, and, at a second fixture the same year, Joyce’s A.C. was fastest, in 28.0 sec. for a s.s. half-mile. Nothing more seems to have happened until the event was resumed in 1932, up to 1938. After the war the Speed Trials commenced again in 1946, so I made this year’s fixture the 28th and I am only sorry our reporter is too young, and Brighton living too much in the Regency age, for either of them to remember that, local objections apart, two World Wars have occurred to interrupt the series since the first one in 1905! Having reminded them of that fact, may I say that I hope these excellent fixtures will continue successfully for another 28 years, by which time the “sling-shots ” will no doubt be taking off and making their landfalls at Newhaven.—ED.]

 

THE MODERN CORTINA!

Sir,

Reading Vivien Batchelor’s exposition in the Evening Standard of “what goes on under the bonnet” of the new Ford Cortina, I was not vastly impressed by the news that the front wheels have independent suspension, that the downdraught carburetter has a separate choke control, or that each cylinder has separate inlet and exhaust ports! None of these suggested radical re-thinking of design. What has persuaded me to part with my model-T is the brave news that “the camshaft is operated by a mechanical diaphragm pump ” !  Perhaps someone should look under Mr. Batchelor’s bonnet.

London, N.2.                                                                                                                               STEPHEN WOOD.

 

FISH AND CHIPS OR TEST-STATIONS?

Sir,

With reference to Mr. Marples’ recent announcement that tests for one-year-old cars are soon to be thrust upon us, I am intrigued to know how the major British car manufacturers regard this open suspicion of the serviceability of their current models. Surely this new move shows them in an extremely bad light!

Whilst it is appreciated that a very small percentage of motorists do treat new cars so badly as to render them “M.O.T. test pieces” within the course of twelve months, one cannot help but feel that the great Marples Ministry is as good as suspecting a new car before it leaves the factory. As readers’ letters on these pages point out, ” duds ” do escape from the factory, but not to the degree implied by this latest announcement.

Uncle Ernie’s latest fad will simply serve to increase the flow of gold into the, already well filled, coffers of garage proprietors. Perhaps, at the present rate, we shall soon see all cars on British G.P. grids carrying “M.O.T.-tested” stickers ?

I have heard it said that the most lucrative business one might have is a “Fish and Chip” shop, now one wonders about Vehicle Testing Stations . . . ?

Sale.                                                                                                                                              R. J. SMITH.

 

MARPLES’ AID FOR BRITISH FACTORIES!

Sir,

Marples is suggesting that 12-month-old cars be tested for road worthiness.

If the present trend continues, then ultimately cars will be Ministry of Transport tested before leaving their place of manufacture. Is this Mr. Marples’ answer to foreign competition ?

Datchet.                                                                                                                                         D. A. GIRDLER.

 

THE TWIN-CAM M.G.

Sir,

I am very pleased to see that at last the opportunity has arisen to air experiences of the M.G.-A Twin-Cam in your correspondence columns. May I add that I am the owner of a 1959 model— engine No. 1342—and I am exceptionally pleased with it. Although a relatively early car in the series, the engine unit was completely rebuilt at the M.G.-A Works at Abingdon during November 1960 and fitted with 8.3 compression pistons (B.M.C. Part No. AEH690). These pistons have a stepped lower compression ring, the undercap being fitted towards the bottom of the pistons; this acts as a scraper and reduces oil consumption. The top ring is plain high tensile cast iron, not chrome plated. The latest distributor, AEJ41, was also fitted, the ignition static setting now being 8° b.t.d.c.

With the above modifications the result is a very much smoother engine, b.h.p. still being 100-plus, and the car is quite suitable for London traffic crawling.

The slightly lower compression ratio has solved the problem of driving on the Continent, especially in some countries where 100 octane fuel is unavailable, although whenever possible it is advisable to use the best fuel.

I have found that Champion spark plugs No. 4 give me very satisfactory results for pottering about and cruising, while for continuous hard driving, for example on autobahnen, etc., Champion No.3 are more suitable.

In conclusion, may I point out to Mr. Russell that the M.G.-A Technical Service Department, and in particular Mr. P. O. Edwards, have been most helpful in answering all my queries.

London, S.W.7.                                                                                                                               D. THEODOROU

 

VW STILL SUPREME

Sir,

So we have yet another challenger for the VW; it must do the Wolfsburg people a great deal of good. I don’t think the “VW challengers” will do much good, particularly if they have cart springs and a water-cooled engine. About the only thing the rivals have over the VW is performance.

The basic concept of the VW is just A-to-B transportation with reliability aided by a nice slow-running engine. I fail to see the virtue of a small engine revving at 5,000. Bore wear is independent of piston speed but it is undeniable that engines wear out faster at high speeds. Advances in metallurgy and fuel quality have made high engine speeds less of a problem, but why use compression ratios that preclude the use of cheaper low octane petrols ? The VW can use fuel that would make the rivals detonate like mad; this is of course a tremendous advantage in some of the poorer countries.

VW rivalsl there just are not any, to my mind, the lesson of the VW has not yet been learned; the manufacturers are afraid to take a chance on making a real competitor. Is the possibility of cornering a World Market not sufficient incentive to produce such a car ?

Liverpool.                                                                                                                                            S. MASON.

 

Sir,

I have been rather amused by the recent articles in the Press to the effect that our new car models are going to knock the bonnet off the ugly little Volkswagen. Surely this is being too, too presumptive ?

New British cars, of course, have been going to create havoc with VW sales during the five years or so that I have been a “fan,” but results to date have been unimpressive. On the other hand, my three and a half years as a VW owner have provided me with 44,000 miles of wonderfully carefree motoring. What ? No new tyres, or engine overhaul ?

It has been stated, somewhat critically, that the Volkswagen has remained basically the same for more than a quarter of a century. Surely the critics can appreciate that this is the very reason why the VW is so successful. Volkswagenwerk, in their wisdom, have not deemed it necessary to introduce a new model each year, but merely to improve their existing “Beetle” to bring it to a pitch of perfection (mechanically), unsurpassed in the annals of the mass-produced motor car.

High-pressure salesmanship has never been needed to sell the VW in such fantastic numbers, and so long as Volkswagenwerk produce such a beautifully finished and incredibly reliable machine, it will never be needed, for VW owners simply “spread the gospel.” Watch the meeting of two Volkswagens on any of our roads. See the owners’ friendly wave and smile to each other as they purr contentedly along. And this in an age when the lack of courtesy and goodwill on our roads is absolutely appalling.

One day, perhaps, if our Motor Industry were injected with some anti-strike serum, we might produce a car to compare with the incredible Volkswagen. Then I might be found clamouring at the gates of the nearest distributor to try a sample.

Meanwhile, however, I shall remain a happy and contented ” Beetler.”

Weymouth.                                                                                                                                   B. SEARLE.

 

Sir,

After reading your editorial in the September issue, I was rather surprised to see that you have been “carried away” by the Morris 1100 and have avoided any references to your “old love” the beetle.

Such is the success of the VW 1200 that many new cars come and go and it is still with us in ever increasing numbers. Before we can say (if ever) that the beetle has found its match in the new B.M.C. car, we shall have to wait many years.

The success of the VW might never be repeated again in motoring history. Even though the production rate is over a million a year, the demand cannot be satisfied.

I, for one, would buy another VW 1200 in preference to the Morris 1100. Here are some of my reasons.

In comparison to the B.M.C. product the VW is stronger and yet lighter. It has full-size fittings (large seats, wheels, bumpers, pedals, etc.). It has proved rugged, reliable, long lasting. It has the advantages of a light alloy engine and air cooling. It does not need an overdrive, has more traction, and it never tires even when driven flat out over long distances. The service is unequalled and the finish superior. It has a chassis, a twin exhaust system, and it comes complete. I also prefer rear engines and twin boots for balance.

Such value for money cannot be equalled anywhere, even when the car suffers from a heavy import duty.

This is why the Morris product cannot possibly compete with the VW 1200 unless it is cheaper, which will only be the case in a few countries (mostly Commonwealth).

Nevertheless the ADO16 formula is a big step forward for the British car industry and it is as good as some of the latest Continental light cars (such as the Renault R-8). Given further development (such as a light alloy air-cooled engine), better workmanship and a price reduction, it should give Wolfsburg some very healthy competition and we might yet see a VW 1200 in new guise.

[I confess I miss my beetling days very much. I regard the VW as still the finest value in the World.—ED.]

Albrighton.                                                                                                                                   A. L. GLADWELL.

 

FORD CORTINA v. MORRIS 1100

Sir,

Congratulations to Ford on the new Cortina. What a pity that the Morris 1100 is years ahead of it in all basic engineering points. We are told that the Cortina was originally conceived nine years ago, which perhaps explains why it is so antiquated in its power pack, transmission and suspension designs. As far as I can see, the only feature of the Cortina which is “one-up” on the Morris is the luggage boot, being much larger.

In a recent TV programme we were told that the addition of synchromesh to bottom gear on the smaller Ford box cost £1 million in tooling costs, etc. If this is true Fords must be tearing their hair, what with having to re-carburate the Anglia twice in three years to get rid of the flat spot (and still not succeeding), having to re-engine the Classic and Capri after only one year due to rotten performance compared with other cars of similar size, and then, to crown it all, launching a car which is outdated from the start.

If B.M.C. can produce enough 1100s to satisfy everyone’s orders I should think that they will have a monopoly of the 1100 size car market. I wish B.M.C. success with their new venture and can only express my sympathy with the Ford Motor Company on being unable to obtain the services of a forward-looking designer like Alec Issigonis.

Overbury.                                                                                                                                  MICHAEL JOHNSON.

 

MINI IN AUSTRALIA

Sir, After continually reading of the many complaints made by people owning Mini-Minors, I am of the opinion that Australian workmanship is far superior to the British B.M.C. counterpart. I have now owned a Mini for eight months (9,000 miles) and have replaced the following under guarantee :

(1) One thermostat (stamped Smiths : England).

(2) One throttle cable.

(3) Two window catches.

(4) Two suspension rubbers (lower arm inner pivot bushes). A relatively small amount of trouble for the mileage covered on our shocking Australian roads.

The car has never leaked water at any point even after being driven through water level with the bottoms of the doors. Examining under the bonnet after having done this, water was found in the recess around the wingnut on top of the air-cleaner, where it was deposited by the build-up of water in front of the car. From this it is apparent that water was right over the motor and it hesitated but once.

The only major irritation suffered (since cured) was rattling windows after being shaken about on many miles of gravel roads. Dust sealing throughout is quite adequate. This is an important factor with any car in Australia.

A trip of 2,200 miles was undertaken at Easter, the first leg being 1,060 miles to be covered in the shortest possible time. This was done at an average speed of 53 m.p.h., observing 30 m.p.h. through towns, and a fuel consumption of 41 m.p.g. Two drivers of course.

At our destination many more rough mountain climbing miles were covered (with four occupants above 5,000 ft.), and we were told on leaving that the Mini had been places where only Land-Rovers had been. Fair enough! It’s tough enough for Australia.

The only damage sustained was a few stone chips in the paint and a flattened hydraulic line. Both fuel and brake lines are now protected by an armouring provided from another car in a breaker’s yard. Many other short trips (200 miles or so) have been made, all at 60 m.p.h. on a calibrated speedometer.

A point of interest about speedometers : I was told by an instrument repairer that all Smiths speedos are not lubricated from new, hence their early failure.

Close observation was kept on tyre wear. The Dunlops were discarded as soon as Michelins arrived here. Other little modifications or extras are a larger accelerator pedal pad, long-range driving light, seat belts, a walnut dash and an HA needle in the carburetter.

Rust is non-existent. Rust preventing paint was purchased to put in those cunning little rust-traps that car manufacturers thoughtfully provide, but those on the Australian Mini are either heavily painted or covered with undersealing compound. Please don’t get the impression that it doesn’t rain here, one inch of rain in one hour is not uncommon.

Another strong complaint one reads about is noise. It’s true it is a little noisy, but the car has not yet been made that can provide the comfort and silence of a Rover or a Mercedes-Benz with the economy and price and fun of a motor-scooter.

The car uses exclusively Mobiloil and Mobilgas and is maintained regularly to the service schedule, and with this I hope to get many more trouble-free and happy miles of motoring.

Brisbane.                                                                                                                                       R. H. NEILSEN.

 

RETROGRADE BROOKLANDS ?

Sir,

I am in the process of reading the Editor’s excellent book about Brooklands. But I was struck by the Foreword by the late John Cobb. May I quote : ” . . when Brooklands was sold, an event which, . . ., may well cause a decline in British Motor Racing from which it may never recover.” I was not alive in those days, but may I be so bold as to say, with no disregard to John Cobb, that Brooklands caused our stationary attitude (apart from Bentleys) to Continental road racing. As far as I can gather a great number of people built racing cars with the sole object of driving them at Brooklands; whereas, now, post-war, this country has taken over the number-one role in road racing; because the Motor Industry needed racing for publicity and testing and so turned to road racing. My conclusion is that the Campbell Circuit should have been built earlier, or even something larger (I have not forgotten Donington Park, but that was too late as well).

Sherborne.                                                                                                                                S. F. W. MOORE.

(John Cobb wrote the Foreword referred to in 1948, when he could hardly foresee the great contribution to British success in G.P. motor racing that would be made by Cooper, B.R.M., Lotus, Vanwall, and others. But if Mr. Moore takes the trouble to read motor-racing history he will see that British firms such as Napier, Sunbeam, Vauxhall, Calthorpe, Hillman, Morgan and several others competed in Continental competitions before the First World War, and any success they achieved was to a considerable extent due to tests they were able to conduct on Brooklands Track.

Far from Brooklands developing the sports/racing Bentleys, these were winning at Le Mans before the idea of long-distance sports-car races at the Weybridge Track was borrowed from the A.C. de l’Ouest by the Essex M.C. (Six-Hour Race) and the J.C.C. (“Double Twelve”). So hands off the memory of Brooklands. Let what Vickers Armstrongs have allowed to remain of the old Motor Course rest in peace, its reputation unsullied.—ED.]

 

THE BEST

Sir,

I see that, in the Editorial column of your current issue, you reiterate your no doubt sincerely held belief that the present-day Mercedes is “the best car in the world,” and in support of this contention you quote its recent rally successes. No one, sir, would quarrel with your verdict had current Rolls-Royce or Bentley cars competed in such contests and fair comparison were then possible.

We all respect the fact that Mercedes have always made a very fine car and have maintained a progressive attitude towards design and performance, but, in spite of all this, I am not by any means alone in thinking that you have been a trifle precipitate in making such a categorical statement without the evidence of direct comparison.

Have you, sir, in fact, given a thorough and expertly conducted test to any of the recent products of the Crewe factory ? It will be no excuse to say, as you once hinted, that, owing to a former prejudicial report, they no longer offer you this privilege.

The unwelcome news that, owing to the machinations of the Department of Inland Revenue, such magnificent English cars may go out of production fills most of us with sadness at the possibility of the passing of what we still feel to be the best car in the world.

Even when such a sad event does come to pass we have an idea that a “foreign” firm named “Cadillac” may have something to say about this “best car in the world” business.

But perhaps you haven’t yet been granted carte blanche to test their cars either!

Birkenhead.                                                                                                         JOHN C. HISCOCK.

[No.—ED.)

 

JOWETT SERVICE

Sir,

As a most keen reader of your excellent unbiased magazine for the past eight years, I must say I have enjoyed the various readers’ letters immensely, but as yet never having taken an active part by way of a letter.

Some months ago I found a cracked piston in my Jowett Javelin, and on the advice of the manufacturer returned it. Following is the last paragraph of the letter I received from them within a week of sending the old piston.

“We do, therefore, feel it would have been better if all pistons were changed and we are arranging for four replacement pistons to be despatched under separate cover, on a free-of-charge basis. These pistons will be of the revised crown thickness and should be in your possession within the next day or so. We should also like to point out that this action is being taken purely as a mark of assistance and goodwill, entirely without prejudice.”

In days of mass production it is a rewarding thought to know that firms like Hepworth and Grandage still take a personal interest.

High Wycombe.                                                                                                                              E. HANCOX.

[Not bad, not bad at all—an object lesson for manufacturers still in business !—ED.]

 

DUNLOP v. MICHELIN

Sir,

I have followed with interest comments which various readers have made concerning what is evidently their dissatisfaction with Dunlop Gold Seal tyres. Much of this comment has been from owners of fairly large and potent vehicles and perhaps there is some substance in Mr. Sinclair’s assumption of “sporting types” owning them. However, Mr. Sinclair must realise that if a particular tyre will stand a towsing from “sporting types” it will undoubtedly stand Grandma’s tootling at 30 m.p.h. Nevertheless, the merits of Michelin “X” are not confined to large, hairy motor cars.

During late 1957 I purchased a Wolseley 1500 whilst living in France and, a few months after, a Peugeot 403. The Wolseley was shod with Dunlop Gold Seal and the Peugeot, of course, with Michelin. Both ears were meticulously run-in, but after this period were made to conform with the fast-flowing Continental traffic. At 10,000 miles I replaced the bald Gold Seals with English-made “X”s (size not being available in France). The fitting of “X”s coincided with fitting four shock-absorbers, four exhaust valves and innumerable bulbs. I gratefully sold this Wolseley a further 10,000 miles later, when it needed another set of shock-absorbers and a further top overhaul, and its appetite for bulbs was unappeased; the tyres were unmarked. During this time, the Peugeot, with 18,000 miles to its credit, was precisely as it left the factory. Nothing had been replaced or repaired. At 35,000 miles I removed the “X”s. The only other item I replaced in this period was a throttle cable. I sold this eminently satisfactory vehicle shortly after this and purchased an “X”-shod Peugeot, a 403B.

Perhaps I drove the Wolseley hard; certainly no harder than my 403. Maybe the Gold Seals were a poor set, in which case my colleague in France had the same trouble on his 1500 Wolseley. It is possible that the Wolseley was a “wolf” for tyres. Then why was its appetite satisfied with “X”s ?

No, Mr. Sinclair, please face-up to the fact that the Michelin “X” is a superior article.

Ten thousand miles per set of tyres is as ridiculous as it is expensive, and, in view of my experience, I have no intention of ever buying a Dunlop tyre again. It is therefore unlikely that I shall be able to use the discarded covers, as Mr. Marshall suggests,as boat fenders.

Chippenham.                                                                                                                      Roy C. AXTEN (Flt.-Lt.,R.A.F.)

 

THE BEST SMALL CAR

Sir,

I note that the Baden-Baden Motor Rally has been won by a Mini-Cooper, with the Mercedes and Porsche second and third respectively.

Bearing in mind the observations in last month’s “Matters of Moment,” presumably one is justified in regarding the Mini-Cooper as “The Best Car in the World”—just for this week?

Pens Wood.                                                                                                                              W. F. HARMS.

(Best Small Car in the World—perhaps. But the Mini-Cooper hasn’t won the European Rally Championship as Mercedes-Benz has and it is a car intended for rallying, not for luxury touring. In any case we base our contention that the modern Mercedes-Benz is the Best Car in the World on all-round perfection, not solely on rally victories.—ED.)

 

THE DRIVERS’ WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.

Sir,

In your October issue you invite comment on the Drivers’ World Championship. As I see it the position is this :

Grand Prix motor racing relies for its existence on the financial assistance of the fans who turn up in their tens and hundreds of thousands. Most of them are not enthusiasts in the MOTOR SPORT meaning of the word, and certainly not purists as referred to recently by “D. S. J.” They come for a thrill and more particularly to watch their hero of the moment; in fact they need feeding with personalities, not technicalities. The World Championship in its present form provides personalities – as the annual battle for points is waged, and as such does motor racing a considerable service by bringing in the paying customers. Complication of the marking system would reduce the mass appeal and drawing power of the Championship.

Perhaps the Editor and “D. S. J.” would regard the World Championship in a slightly kinder light if they look on it as advertising for the Sport, directed at the masses, rather than as a serious part of motor racing for the converted.

Lancaster.                                                                                                                                    W. G. BRITTON.

 

MYSTERY

Sir,

I have, for the past few days, been completely baffled—the source of my bewilderment being the mystery car of Mr. Blades mentioned in the October 1962 edition of your excellent journal.

A stop-watch “ton,” 24 m.p.g. under favourable conditions and a 0-60 time of 11 sec. or less, would appear to be totally incompatible with a car of 1949 vintage. My own records only extend to 1951 and I append brief performance details of some of the more spritely cars tested during that year by a well-known and reliable weekly journal.

It can be seen that only the Ferrari 212 satisfies the performance requirements whilst falling far short in terms of fuel consumption. A noisy clock at 55 m.p.h. would hardly be noticed against the background of fruity noises which usually accompany this type of machinery!

To conclude; please Mr. Blades tell us your secret and reveal the denomination of your refined and sophisticated “goer”.

Harlington.                                                                                                                                  A. WALKER.

 

WHIPPY

Sir,

Body whip on E-type Jaguars. Bah!!

Mr. G. R. Batt (Jaguar vs. Lancia, October 1962) must know very little about Jaguar E-types racing. Although I have only once seen them racing, even I know that the boot lid is intentionally left open to facilitate better brake cooling. Perhaps, before criticising a fine car, Mr. Batt should learn more about it.

I greatly admire your excellent magazine and seize it as soon as it arrives. It is then sent to my brother. in America, where it is passed round to all his friends. Keep up the good work.

Willenhall.                                                                                                                                    F. G. COOPER

[In racing, yes, but the boot-lid of the road-test Jaguar-E sprung open at high speed when we had every reason to want it to remain shut.—ED.]

 

HOW FAR IN 24 HOURS?

Sir,

Mr. Eagle will be interested to hear that in 1936 J. O. C. Samuel also completed 1,000 miles in 24 hours. The car used was a 1½-litre Blackburne-engined Frazer Nash, and the route Folkestone-Edinburgh-Folkestone, under R.A.C. observation. This exploit was sponsored by Cleveland Discol.

The car, DMK 183, is owned by a member of the Frazer Nash section of the V.S.C.C.

Farnham.                                                                                                                                       JOHN TEAGUE.

Related articles

Related products