Letters from Readers, November 1949

Sir,
What a marvellous commentary was carried out by John Bolster at the September Goodwood. meeting — full of wit, humour and accurate reporting. B.B.C. please take note.
I am, Yours, etc.,
A. H. Davies-Holmes.
Wembley.

The ’08 Austin Mystery

Sir,
After reading “Veteran Types — XXXIV: A Flashback” and Mr. W. A. Taylor’s letter on the same subject, both published in the October issue, it seems to me distinctly likely that the shaft-drive car now in the maker’s possession is that described in the Autocar of October 10th, 1908, as having been fitted with a “Roi des Belges” body for Sir Hickman Bacon, Bart. This gentleman lived at Gainsborough in the Lindsey division of Lincolnshire, and the first registration letters used by the Lindsey County Council were BE. The car now owned by Austins is stated to be BE 3. The late Sir Hickman Bacon, as a pioneer motorist in the district, may well have had this number attached to an earlier car in 1904 and had it transferred to the Austin when it came into his possession, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he or a subsequent owner refitted the original body, or had a replica made.

Or, as the other shaft-drive car, vide Mr. Lamballe, was never rebuilt after being crashed in practice, did the body survive at Longbridge, and perhaps replace the “Roi des Belges” body when BE 3 returned there?
I am, Yours, etc.,
N. H. Fowler.
Lincoln.
[Yes, my dear Watson, a pretty problem indeed. Yet I believe I have the solution. You see, after sifting all the readily-available evidence I decided the issue might have been confused through memories getting a little rusty, which is possible, after 40 years. Let us suppose, then, that it was Resta’s chain-drive car which crashed irreparably and, with all deference to Mr. Lambelle (or what the Editor made Mr. Lambelle say, for I understand his manuscript was difficult to decipher), that Resta drove a shaft-drive Austin in the Grand Prix. I hope to confirm this supposition after consulting my good-friends Iliffe and Temple Press, but at the moment it must suffice. You will allow, Watson, that the wording of Mr. Heal’s article does nothing to deny it, nor does Mr. Karslake’s excellent book on the race throw any light on the matter. Good! We know that Austin built two chain and two shaft-drive cars for the race. By studying some old newspaper cuttings under my magnifying-glass, I am satisfied that two chain-drive and one shaft-drive cars were registered in Worcester, presumably by Austins. These cars we find competing in a demonstration race at Brooklands before they left for France, driven by Resta, Brabazon and Wright, respectively. The fourth car was absent. Why, Watson? I suggest because it wasn’t registered; it was the spare car and would not necessarily be much driven on the road.

Now Mr. Lambelle recalls Resta taking over the spare car after overturning his chain-drive car and he tells us of a panic after the race to evade the police on the run to Dieppe. I suggest because they were interested in a car which had practised and crashed on the public highway without a registration number.

So we have back at the works after the race, Brabazon’s car, Resta’s unregistered shaft-drive car, Wright’s car with “melted bearings” and a wrecked chain-drive car. Splendid, Watson!

Brabazon’s chain-drive car has never been seen since and the other was never rebuilt. Of the shaft-drive cars, one is at the works with an early BE number and one was sold to Jack Johnson.

What we have to establish, my dear Watson, is which car was which.

Now Mr. Lambelle recalls giving Johnson a trial run in Resta’s car and that he bought it and took it on a tour of Europe. If we allow that a larger petrol tank would be a likely fitting for such a tour and that Johnson may have either run the car unlicensed or on foreign plates, this confirms that Johnson had the spare car driven in the race by Resta. I have already discovered that in the photograph the car has a 1910 registration plate and this was probably that issued when Johnson taxed the car on his return to England, or perhaps that of a London dealer who was trying to sell the car and distributed the picture to this end.

It is thus obvious that the car now at Austins is either the Warwick Wright or the Brabazon machine. The Autocar caption implies Brabazon’s, but Mr. Lambelle recalls Brabazon driving a chain-drive car, so, if he is correct, we have found Warwick Wright’s car, allowing that my deduction up to this point is sound.

The early BE registration is explained by Mr. Fowler, for it was issued about 1904 by the Lincolnshire County Council, very likely in Lindsey, and was doubtless put on the car when Sir Francis Hickman, Bt., bought it. The racing body, slightly modified, was either replaced when the car returned to Austins at some later date, or Sir Francis may have used the car with both two and four-seater bodies, which was by no means uncommon in those days. The extra carburetter, lighting generator, and use of larger front wheels to obviate carrying two sizes of spare tyre, all point to the car having been converted for road use. The lower steering column? Why, how slow you are, Watson! Clearly, the original column would have been removed to allow the four-seater body to be fitted and someone was a little careless in refitting it when the car was a two-seater.

All this fits together perfectly, yet may be completely erroneous. I confess I should have expected Sir Francis to choose the car which finished the race, rather than the one which ran its bearings. Call me a cab, Watson, and tell the driver to take me to King’s Cross. If catch, the 10.15 I can reach the Lincoln taxation offices before they shut, – S.H.]

The “Over-Rated” H.R.G.

Sir,
If I may again be permitted to trespass upon your space and the patience of your readers, I should like to enlarge upon my comments in your July issue. The point which I then tried to make was that, in my opinion, the extra price of the H.R.G. over the “TC” M.G. was justified by its consistency and longevity when used for competitions.

Since that issue, H.R.G.s and M.G.s have, been in direct competition in three major events, the Twelfth International Alpine Rally, the Daily Express Production Car Race and Brighton International Speed Trials: the results provide an interesting comparison.

Seven M..G.s and seven H.R.G.s started in Class F of the International Alpine Rally, now generally rated as the toughest event held this year in Europe for standard cars; two cars only finished the 1,800 mile course from each marque, a finishing starting ratio which may appear low, but which compares favourably with the ratio of 31 finishers to 92 starters: “TC” M.G.s were first and second in the class, the H.R.G.s were third and fourth. The H.R.G.s were consistently faster in the three timed runs, 5 km. on the Milan-Bergamo Autostrada, where the fastest H.R.G. returned 77.8 m.p.h. as against the fastest M.G.’s 71.8 m.p.h., and 7 km. on the Col di Stelvio and the Col de Vars, but the brilliant driving of Miss Haig won the class for the Abingdon (M.G.) factory.

However, whilst this was the first “Alpine” for the finishing M.G.s, both H.R.G.s successfully completed the Rally in 1948: it will be interesting to see whether the same successful M.G.s will repeat their magnificent performance in 1950.

In the Silverstone event, H.R.G.s reversed the “Alpine” result, as, although both marques produced a 100 per cent. finishing starting ratio in the 1,500-c.c. class, H.R.G.s were first, second and fourth, the M.G.s were fifth, sixth and seventh, the best H.R.G. finishing 11th in the general classification, as compared to the best M.G.’s 18th place. Further, in. order to produce these results, the H.R.G.s did not have to be driven in a manner calling for “special observation” around the course.

The M.G.s were, however, entered by an executive of the M.G. Car Company, and had had very little road use, if one could judge from their lack of Index plates, whilst the privately-owned H.R.G.s had had a strenuous competition life; one, indeed, had started in the Alpine Rally, and had been raced at Goodwood the previous week-end.

At Brighton, Class 2 was contested by 27 entrants, of which, if logically considered, only six entrants, driving various “heated” motors, could be considered as having a real chance of the prize money: the remaining 21, which included the “Alpine” prize-winning M.G. and an “Aerodynamic” H.R.G. which was third to it, were probably out for a good morning’s fun. The H.R.G. which, with a fixed screen and heavy coachwork, is unsuitable for sprinting on a straight course, returned 39.76 sec., to the Alpine M.G.’s 41.20 sec., this time being bettered by only one of the seven “TC” M.G.s engaged. The H.R.G. had had little attention since returning from the “Alpine,” the only preparation for Brighton consisting of a careful greasing changing of oils, replacing a leaking petrol tank and lowering the axle-ratio to 4.55-to-1.

I was greatly interested by Mr. Fitzgerald’s comparison bet ween the “blown” “TC” M.G. and the “Aerodynamic” H.R.G.: the figures quoted by Mr. Fitzgerald for the latter car are superior to those quoted by me in the July issue for the two-seater H.R.G., which weighs some 2 cwt. less than the “Aerodynamic” model. The best figure I know of for an “Aerodynamic” in standard trim, is 0 to 80 m.p.h. in 39.76 sec., but that was attained on a 4.55-to-1 axle. Mr. Fitzgerald says nothing of axle ratios but, assuming a normal axle ratio, I would reckon that the r.p.m. figure for his astounding parkway run should be nearer 5,000 than 5,200.

I know of no “blown” 1,500-c.c. H.R.G. in this country, but there is one on the Continent, about which, however, I have no exact figures.
I am, Yours, etc.,
J. Gott.

Sir,

After reading Mr. Day’s letter published in the October issue of your journal, I feel bound to say a few words in defence of the H.R.G.

I am at present running a “1,500” H.R.G., and a 1,250-c.c. “TB” M.G., and from experience gained would assure Mr. Day that faults can easily be found in both types.

The H.R.G. is used daily for business purposes and in addition I have participated in trials, also hill-climbs. Mileage covered to date is over 16,000, without any major trouble in bodywork or electrical components.

Referring to ineffective exclusion of water from the braking system, I have to ford a river twice daily, and at no time during the past two years has the efficiency of the system been impaired by this.

The 4-to-1 rear axle ratio gives effortless cruising, though this is obtained at the expense of absolute maximum: however, as stated by H.R.G.’s in previous correspondence optional ratios are available which give a very good all round performance.

In my opinion the extra cost of the H.R.G. can be confined to the following:
1. Ability to purchase off the peg.
2. That little extra, apparent from M.C.C. awards.
3. Enthusiastic and personal service from the works.
4. Accessibility.
5. Light aluminium body.
I am, Yours, etc.,
E. D. Scobey.
St. Buryan, Cornwall.

Sir,
I had hoped to keep well clear of the H.R.G.–M.G. controversy, since I feel that in 1949 argument over the relative merits of two cars coming into the “springless-wonder” category carrying built-in-headwind coachwork should, like the persisting Bentley — “30/98” controversy, be left to historians. However, the quotation by Mr. Eric Day of one-sided extracts from an article I wrote for the Motor forces me to supplement your entirely accurate editorial footnote.

My “1,100” model H.R.G. was purchased new, at the list price of £289, many years before I had any connection with motoring journalism, and was one of the first half dozen examples of the type. No car is perfect — even Rolls-Royce, Ltd., do not make any such claim for their products — but the H.R.G. has served me so pleasingly, economically and reliably that only now, after more than ten years and 65,000 miles, have I come to consider the possibility of selling it.

I have had no comparable amount of experience of the M.G. Midget series “TC,” but did have the driving of a demonstration model for rather more than 1,000 miles early in 1947. I know the models to be reliable and excellent value for money, but finished that distance well content to continue as an H.R.G. owner.
I am, Yours, etc.,
J. Lowrey.
Farnborough,
Hants.
[This correspondence is now closed. — Ed.]

Straw Bales