I crave space to direct another “outburst ” against Mr. Gandhi, who appears to be somewhat misinformed about my poor little H.R.G. To take his objections in the same order as he enters them in your August issue :— (1) The Singer “Le Mans” engine has not been made for several years. While admiring the racing Singers very much,
I was not greatly impressed by the model offered to the public, which, if I remember rightly, was not quite as good as the contemporary M.G. My engine is a much humbler unit, being that used in the Singer “Bantam,” but with raised compression and twin carburetters. As it does not develop many horses it will apparently last for ever, with a commendable lack of hunger and thirst.
(2) The equipment certainly is light, but as it is also strong this is surely a good thing ? Cycle-type mudguards are not used and were not standard on any touring H.R.G.
(3) As the car spent much of its “civvy” life amid the pot-holes of industrial Lancashire, I am sure I should have got tired of the ” unnecessarily hard” springing, which compares more than favourably with the S.S. 100.
(4) The dashboard is a piece of wood, on which are mounted a row of seven clearly legible instruments, of which all are separate and adequately illuminated. What does Mr. G. want ? Chromium plating ? St. Christopher, a grab-rail and a cigar-lighter are not fitted.
(5) The brakes, which I praise so much, can hardly be found on “many massproduced ears,” as they are both designed and made by H.R.G.’s. They are not, as he appears to imagine, Girling or Bendix.
Thus the H.R.G. is NOT “just a plainer version” of the Singer “Le Mans.” If it must be compared with another car, it is surely with a shaftdrive Frazer-Nash. If Mr. G. can get a run on a 11,-litre, his ideas will, I think, undergo a change ; even my feeble contraption, developing little over 3C b.h.p., would interest him more, perhaps, than the road-tests on Nthich his motoring experience appears to be based. I am, Yours etc., W. G. S. WIKE. St. Annes-on-Sea,