Mr. Rawnit, in his condemnation of the vintage-car movement, writes of “an alarming ignorance of the wider facts of automobile engineering” as one of the vintagent’s shortcomings. Judging by the various descriptions I have read of the Mercedes-Benz cars which were placed 1, 2, 3, 4 in this year’s British Grand Prix at Aintree, this accusation would seem to apply to the moderns. For example, these cars were described as follows: —
Motor Sport: “Fangio and Moss had the short-chassis models, with outboard front brakes; that of the latter having a new type bonnet which hinged forward complete with radiator cowling as on a DB2 Aston Martin. Kling and Taruffi had the medium-length cars with outboard front brakes, as first tried at Spa, and the reserve car was an original 1955 model, which is to say a medium-length car with inboard front brakes.”
The Autocar: “The four Mercedes were short-wheelbase cars as first used at Monaco . . . with normal outboard front brakes. The training car . . . was the sole example of the longer type.”
The Motor “Five Mercedes. Two short chassis, normal front brakes; two with inboard brakes.”
Autosport: Mercedes-Benz (called “Silver Arrows”) not technically described.
I think it is now that I write, Verb. Sap.!
I am, Yours, etc.,