Letters From Readers, June 1954

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

Apology
Sir,
I do not know whether to be pleased at having my name in your famous magazine or annoyed at having aspersions cast on my driving.

I did not, repeat not, hit a Lotus it Goodwood or any other car, chicane, or obstruction for that matter! In my mirror I most certainly saw a Lotus doing some funny things just short of the chicane, after I had overtaken it and car No. 19, and it also looked to me as if it was “going” rather than “arriving.”

Perhaps you would be good enough to put a correction in your next issue. Otherwise, many thanks for a most enjoyable publication.

I am, Yours, etc.,
G. Bryan Hewitt.
Farnham.

* * *

Fast Tourers
Sir,
In answer to “Leonides’ request for fast ” tourers”” — surely open cars? — I feel my 1938 4.3-litre short-chassis Vanden Plas-bodied Alvis might well be included.

Taking his five specified ingredients in order: —
(a) It has superb comfort and leg-room for four people, and luggage space in the boot and on a specially detachable rack.
(b) It will cruise effortlessly at 80 m.p.h. at 3,500 r.p.m. engine speed and 2,400 f.p.m. piston speed on its 3.8 top gear.
(c) Roadholding, steering and brakes magnificent; suspension, i.f.s. transverse leaf; lights, P100.
(d) Ease of servicing and extreme reliability.
(e) Miles per gallon 16-19 at fast cruising speeds.

In addition to these features I can enjoy the pleasures of an open tourer, with all the comfort of a saloon with the sidescreens and hood in position.

I have only recently acquired my particular example and with a genuine 40,000 miles to its credit I see few models on the market for which I would exchange it.

I am, Yours, etc.,
Ivan Ratcliff.
Kensington, S.W.5.

* * *

American Views
Sir,
I have been a subscriber to your publication for almost a year now, and have recommended it to all my acquaintances as the best available. I feel that your paper is far better than the weeklies, in that it contains so very much more readable material. As soon as each issue arrives, I do not put it down until I have read it from cover to cover, including the advertisements. Here in the United States we have several publications which are good, but there are none which are so thoroughly conversant with the imported car as yours. We have the road-tests and all that sort of thing, and of these I believe those by Road and Track are the best. I have all issues of all the magazines to which I subscribe bound yearly as I will have Motor Sport, and the index will be a handy supplement indeed.

I own an M.G. TD, my second, and only finance prevents me from collecting quite a few cars, particularly the British makes. I have long been enamoured with these, the Frazer-Nash Le Mans replica in particular. My greatest sorrow is that this particular type of car will probably no longer be in production once I reach the stage where I could afford one. My occupation is that of a physician and I am just trying to get a practice established, so it will be some time before I will be able to own more than an M.G. I must say that this car (the M.G.), above all, has done more to further and promote interest in sports cars here in America than any other. In the first place the price has been such that it was available to many, as I, who could not afford any other. Parts were cheaper, and easier to come by than others. I regret to see that it is being gradually crowded out by newer makes. Most of us here hoped for a larger engine in the TF model, but this was not the case. I understand that later the works plan to put the Magnette engine in the TF. doubt less with another cam and higher compression ratio.

I have touted the new AC to several of my friends in that they could get a tubular chassis, an independent rear suspension, Frazer-Nash type suspension in general, and rack-and-pinion steering for the same price, if not a little less than the price of the Austin-Healey. So far no one that I have heard of has purchased one here in the States. I would certainly like to be able to drive one of these, for it looks like a most exceptionally well-made car.

The Austin-Healey is another car that had some tragic mistakes made, especially when Donald Healey was allowed to put very little more than his name into it. Using the Austin suspension rather than his trailing link is costing them dear already. Although labelled as a “touring sports car,” they have been run in competition here, and in the hands of capable drivers have acquitted themselves well. This has been the case each time a factory-prepared model with a higher output engine has run.

I really think that English engines will have to go to more c.c.s, for it would seem that they have been extended, in the main, about as far as they will go in the present size. I make special reference here to those in the Bristol, Frazer-Nash and B.M.W. I would also include the Aston Martin. All of these are most excellent cars, in my estimation, and need only a little larger engine to make thern superb. The Jaguar has too much for they are really usable only in long-trip driving. Since most of our driving is in town and on short trips, Jaguar engines suffer terribly trying to get 14 quarts of oil warm for a run to the office. Then too the gasoline consumption rivals most of our American engines with larger bores and much more weight to drag around. Again my thanks to you for a very fine magazine, and may your present policy of honest criticism endure. I think it is most commendable.

I am, Yours, etc.,
Thos. E. McArthur, M.D.
Georgia, U.S.A.

* * *

Another Hornte’s Nest
Sir,
In your article “Historical Notes” of the April issue there were some terse comments on “so called ‘sports’ cars of the 1930 era.” May I say something about the Wolseley Hornets mentioned therein and leave the others to owners who no doubt will have similar feelings?

The definition of a “sports” car has yet to be clarified. There is certainly more to it than performance (i.e., speed).

Appearance, layout, cornering ability and pride mean most to me. I would say that a sports car was essentially one designed for the pleasure of driving as much as for mere conveyance. My 1932 Hornet, which I understand is in no way vastly different basically from any other, has only two of the presumptuous additions of a much more powerful car as mentioned by “A.B.C.” — namely a quick-lift filler cap, which I regard as a normal and quite sensible convenience, and a radiator ‘stone-guard which I tend to regard as a protection from the wheelspin divots of cars in front of me, which I assume will be travelling more quickly.

Straps are useful if the bonnet flaps, mine does not, a rev.-counter is not a waste of machinery and the bigger the instruments the easier they are to see. Mine are only five-inch and go up to 100 m.p.h., but much as I know that is a mythical speed for the car, the thing is at least accurate to 1 m.p.h. at 60 m.p.h.

I don’t know quite what these “cowls” are with which the car is “laden down.” Perhaps I may ask to be enlightened on that one? Furthermore, to say the Hornet Special is under-powered is nonsense.

My Hornet which compares favourably in performance with any standard M.G.s of that time is a four-seater, and I regard it mostly as an “open roadster.” It will hit 80 m.p.h. with four up and contrary to much opinion I don’t have to slow down appreciably for corners. It is in fact a pleasure to drive, which is good enough for me and my limited pocket, and it,does not pretend to be something more than it is.

I kept an XK120 “hard-top” in my lights from Staines to Basingstoke recently on a moderately busy road, although I must confess that the Jaguar driver seemed highly incompitent as I was alternately deafened by violent engine revolutions as he overtook a bicycle or blinded by flashing brake lights when he came to a bend, for the best part of 30 miles.

Let “A.B.C.” direct his annoyance towards the pseudo-drivers of sports cars rather than, on flimsy evidence, towards pseudo-sports cars.

I can see what he means, but I think he was a little hasty in framing his words and selecting his cars — at least as far as Hornets are concerned. I would not dare to lay myself wide open in your magazine about the others! Thank you anyway for raising this interesting point in your absorbing magazine.

I am, Yours, etc.,
David H. Stead.
Southampton.

* * *

The Vale
Sir,
Like many others, I was very glad to read Allan Gaspar’s letter in defence of the Vale Special. In fact, only a month ago I saw and still admired one of these cars at Box Hill. Dolled up it may have been, but it still looked good, sounded good, and I saw it later moving quite rapidly.

Actually, I was one of those teenagers (horrid word) who used to hang round the workshops in Elgin Mews, back of Maida Vale (incidentally, is that where the “Vale” came from?). We were never turned away, and I well remember a discussion on an overheating problem which the experts (Allan included?) finally decided was caused by the water circulating so fast that the top hose contracted causing restricted flow. No, sir, these cars were built by enthusiasts, and well built, they were no mere dolled-up “specials.” They could certainly see-off Porlock Specials, and give Daytonas a good run. Sic gloria transit!

I am, Yours. etc.,
Len Frewer.
Cheam.

Sir,
The April copy of Motor Sport has just reached this desert outpost, and with it the article entitled “Historical Notes: 1930 and Afterwards,” by “A.B.C.” The contribution is dull and inaccurate, but the reason why I reach for my typewriter today is to refute the author’s absurd comments on that magnificent little sports car, the Vale Special.

In 1933 I left Aston Martin, Ltd., to become Works Foreman and Chief Racing Mechanic at the Vale Motor Co. I was attracted to the firm not by the money they offered (God knows), but by the mixture of technical skill and tremendous enthusiasm which had produced a very clever hand-made sports car at a very low price. I was responsible for building the last seven 8-h.p. cars and it was part of my job to see that every car, after running-in, could do 72 m.p.h. This was not achieved with a fast speedometer nor downhill with a following wind. From my experience with Aston Martins I thought that I knew something about fast cornering, but a short acquaintance with the fully underslung Vale quickly proved to me that I knew very little about it — there never was a better car into a corner than the Vale Special and I doubt very much if there has been a better one since production ceased. I am not attempting an absurd comparison, but I would like to mention that the only XK120 that we have so far seen at speed out here came into its corners leaning, sliding and lurching in a manner that made the writer retch. In fairness I should say that the car may have been mishandled, but a Vale in the hands of a novice would have made a better showing.

Here, at Lamberts Bay, I have four photographs on the walls of my room. The first is of a standard untuned Vale Special 8-h.p. car averaging 65 m.p.h. in the M.C.C. High Speed Trial of 1933, driven by Allan Gaspar, a director of the firm and part-designer of the car. The second is of an 1,100-c.c. car winning the Guernsey Grand Prix a 82 m.p.h. in the same year, driven by R. L. Sangan, and the third is of a blown 1 1/2-litre Vale high on the members’ banking at 120 m.p.h. plus, with Ian Connell in the office. “A.B.C.’s ” Austin Twelve-Six would have had to hurry a bit to catch this family.

The fourth photograph on my wall is of Miss Jane Russell and, far from her being put to shame, there are at least two points of great similarity between this charming young woman and our car. The two that naturally strike the observer most forcibly are the car’s wind cowls which present an over-developed appearance to the uninitiated but, while I understand on good authority that Miss Russell had a special undercarriage designed for her by Howard Hughes merely to give her an attractive appearance, our wind cowls were a perfectly natural development designed to protect the driver and passenger within a certain speed range.

After reading his article through again I feel that “A.B.C.” should stick to his Humbers and leave the discussion of real motor cars to someone else.

There is an old saying — “As simple as A.B.C.”

How simple can you get?

I am, Yours, etc.,
W. Francis James.
Cape Province, S. Africa.

Sir,
As a Vale Special four-seater was my first new car I would like to defend Mr. Gaspar, although I only recall meeting his brother, who was at all times most helpful both before and after the car was made for me.

Admittedly the car was heavy, but nevertheless it was extremely lively in the lower gears, going up to some 6,000 r.p.m., had excellent hydraulic brakes, had amazing cornering capabilities, and did about 80 m.p.h. absolutely flat out. It was also a reliable machine; the only main fault, apart from odd accessory failures, was the remote control gearbox, which I think was a Triumph Gloria fitment.

It stood up to an awful caning, including cinder-track racing, for which of course it was never intended, and on one occasion covered just over 400 miles through Holland and Germany in eleven hours, including two main meal stops, which I thought, and still think, was pretty good for a side-valve 850-c.c. four-seater (there were not many of these built as the makers advised against them, because of added weight) with stacks of luggage. Someone once said to me “D(r)own the Vale,” but I disagreed.

I am, Yours, etc.,
Cyril Mann.
London, N.14.

* * *

Non-Standard Austin-Healey 100
Sir,
I am particularly interested in Mr. Carter’s letter in the current issue of Motor Sport and your comment.

When the Autocar road-test first appeared I was incredulous about the recorded performance of the Austin-Healey 100 tested, and noticed that the registration number of the car was the same as that of the car tested by the Motor whose report had specifically higher gear ratios. I wrote to the Autocar asking if the test car was standard and received a courteous reply saying that it was to the best of their knowledge.

I am afraid that I am still a doubter as I have owned two Healeys, one of which was a Silverstone. This Silverstone was at least as fast as the average. We achieved a second and fourth at a Goodwood members’ meeting against stiff opposition, and it was subsequently handled by J. Buncombe in the Tourist Trophy, but in my hands at least it never achieved the performance reported by the Autocar for the Austin-Healey. On power/weight ratio my Silverstone should I feel have been equal to a standard Austin-Healey.

If your correspondence helps to clear up any remaining ambiguity it will have served a most useful purpose. I always feel that it is vitally important that any cars tested should be exactly in the same form as they can be bought by the normal public, unless of course the report makes it quite clear that it is dealing with a non-standard car tested for general interest.

I am, Yours, etc.,
B. Webb Ware
E. Clandon.
[We cannot tell you: the Austin Motor Co., Ltd., has not submitted an Austin-Healey for road-test, — Ed]

* * *

Grand Prix Selection
Sir,
Surely Piero Taruffi’ deserves a place in your selection of the 25 best Grand Prix drivers of today (May, 1954, Motor Sport)?

I admit that during 1953 he was normally at the wheel of a sports car, but the same applies to several of your selection. His 1952 record with Ferrari included wins in the Swiss Grand Prix, Ulster Trophy, B.R.D.C. Silverstone Formula I race; seconds in the British Grand Prix, Syracuse, Turin; third at Rouen and a fourth in the German Grand Prix. His victory at Berne in 1952 should alone earn him a place.

As a Grand Prix driver, I would rate Taruffi above nine of your selection, most of whom, like Taruffi, were sports-car-mounted in 1953, and none of whom, in my humble opinion, could equal Taruffi’s 1952 Grand Prix form.

I am, Yours, etc.,
Robin Richards.
London.

Sir,