For those interested in old cars.

[stewartingram]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

Not by the number you used to see about. The reason for the two front axles was that for a large heavy coach the Bedford brakes were inadequate and with the heavy engine ahead of the front axle(s) causing handling problems under braking it was decided to fit an extra axle. This effectively solved both problems. The extra brake area solved the first problem and the first axle supported the weight of the engine.

I used to travel on one daily to work (Whippet Coaches). Wonderful smooth ride at the front, almost like sitting on above a bogie!

A mate of mine was a local coach driver in Cambridge. He told me the true story of a "Chinese 6" (aka VAL) coming into Drummer St. bus station in Cambridge one Saturday on a long cross-country express service. One of the 4 wheels at the front was missing - the driver was unaware apparently....

 

Stewart

[steve1]

Seen this morning driving in the opposite direction to me, a red Mk 1 E Type convertible and BRG Morgan Plus 8, in convoy, both with tops down.

 

steve

[Rugd1022]

Regarding Fab 1, I posted those pics on the Mk1 Mini Performance and a poster came back with some info - it was built in 1966 by Toby Baxter Contracts in Biggleswade, Bedfordshire. At 22ft in length it was commissioned to transport Gerry and Silvia Anderson to the film premier of 'Thunderbirds Are Go' and was built on a steel chassis with fibreglass bodywork., powered by a Bedford six cylinder petrol engine with a two speed Powerglide transmission. The wheels were supplied by Landrover and the bumpers were made by an aluminium specialist. The 'Fab 1' numberplate was mounted on a revolving mechanism similar to the one used on the 'Goldfinger' Aston Martin DB5.

 

On the night of the film premier it broke down and the Anderson's had to continue their journey by taxi! Later on, Rolls Royce tried more than once to buy the car and destroy it as they were very unhappy about its existence, they failed to do this and it went on display in the cars and stars museum in Cumbria for a while.

[alastairq]

4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

he reason for the two front axles was that for a large heavy coach the Bedford brakes were inadequate

 As I recall, they remained so......memories of descending into CAstleton on the North York Moors, with a full load of screamin' kids...Right leg decidedly wobbly by the time I got parked up in coach park...

[boxbrownie]

54 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 with a full load of screamin' kids...Right leg decidedly wobbly by the time I got parked up in coach park...

 do you want to rephrase that? 

[Kickstart]

I am not sure whether the screaming kids were cause of effect of the worrying brakes!

 

All the best

 

Katy

[alastairq]

No, they screamed because they could.

The brake pedal was the sort with zero 'give' on it...very little servo effect.

 

On the whole, very smooth riders...Very easy to sweep out between drops too...the floor had no protruding wheel arches.

 

But when loaded, confronted with steep downhill twisty lanes [as they were back then] the braking effect soon became tediously non-existent.

BUt, the art of being a true hairy-harrised bus driver was, not to let on to your passengers that there was any kind of problem.

They should be completely unaware of any sort of drama going on up front....

LAst thing any proper bus driver wanted was a load of panicking passengers.....

Like the time I had an inside rear tyre burst coming off the Beverley bypass....with 5 quite pregnant passengers on the back seat...Not only had panic needed to be subdued, but also any potential labour onsets as well....[Not to mention disguising the fact that a piece of tyre shrapnel had penetrated the floor above the wheel arch, and entered the bottom of one of the lady's handbags...which happened to be stashed on the vacant seat. VAcant, because, no-one was small enough to fit on it!

In fact, once stopped, as it happened, at our first destination.....and the hoohah was subsiding, I had real problems with my transport manager believing me when i phoned for assistance....He was OK with the burst tyre, not quite so OK with the five pregnant ladies on board [there were more as it happened, the others were down the front.....village bun-club outing, as i recall?].......He ought really to have read the hire paperwork....

When he turned up to sort the issue [another bus]....his first words, as I recall, on seeing my passengers lined up were, 'why didn't you tell me.......?'

Hmmmm!

 

Tales courtesy of Revills [and Berrimans] coaches, Langtoft....manager being one Angus Crawford......before I forget due to early onset senility ......my excuse, anyway.

[Rugd1022]

On this day in 1959 the Mini was launched....!

 

 

 

 

[jcredfer]

2 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

On this day in 1959 the Mini was launched....!

 

 

 

 

 

I assume that the intrusion, upper right, isn't really the muzzle of a tank gun.....   any idea what it might be??

 

Julian

 

[peanuts]

11 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Absolutely, Hydroflouric Acid......very nasty acid from Viton synthetic rubbers mainly, it’ll gradually burn your skin and make its way to the bones within.......whenever we had a “thermal event” vehicle come into the workshop it was locked away and only investigated by PPE (as is popular to call it now ) covered peeps.

ah HF deadly  if no treatment with antidote started within 30mins of burning as you correctly say leaches into bones then sets about destroying anything in your body made of calcium like heart valves etc .hated going to collect that when on chemical waste jobs double glove and make sure lots of antidote close at hand before we went anywhere near it ..

[petethemole]

1 hour ago, jcredfer said:

 

I assume that the intrusion, upper right, isn't really the muzzle of a tank gun.....   any idea what it might be??

 

Julian

 

The Mini press launch was at the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment at Chobham, a tank testing ground, so it probably was a tank gun.

[jcredfer]

11 hours ago, petethemole said:

The Mini press launch was at the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment at Chobham, a tank testing ground, so it probably was a tank gun.

 

Thank you.  What a rather interesting choice, given who the mini was aimed at, around the time.  

 

Love the jackets, ties and bowlers - not quite like that these days.....

 

Julian

 

[Rugd1022]

Some colour footage of the Chobham Mini launch was shot, I'm sure it was on youtube a while ago but I haven't found it recently.

 

Some more period Mini stuff....

 

 

 

 

[alastairq]

Amazing when one thinks back, how the Mini started production in 1959.....and Ford ended production of the 103E Popular [very pre-wawer technology, sidevalve engine, 3 speed gluoobox, chassis, 17 inch dia. wheels, vacuum wiper....] the same year.

Mind, there must have been a decent market for a very cheap [even if old technology?] Ford product for them to have carried on producing the vehicle, when it's successor [100E Prefect/anglia/Popular] was almost at an end...their sidevalve engines being succeeded by OHV engines? [107E.....then onto the more radical, but technically simpler....than a mini.....105E Anglia]

Having said that, the  Ford sidevalve engine was incredibly cheap to produce, and very sound engineering....power-wise, very much on a par with its major competitors  of the day... [Which would have been Standard's ten engine, BMC A-series 948cc, etc etc...including such as Renault....VW beetle...mass produced small cars...stuff like Simca, Fiat, etc.]

Of course, it is easy to compare apples with pears in respect of 40's-50's engines...

 

Some say....what killed the motorbike & sidecar, was the minivan...

 

[jcredfer]

When the 105E came out, they made a massive song and dance about it being the world's first "production" OHC, crossflow engine.

 

It wasn't.  At least one other was produced 27 years before, with a production of over 2,000 MG J2s, not bad for 1932 - 4.

 

Coincidentally given the earlier mention, my J2, however was temporarily fitted with a 1172 Ford side valve, whilst the original 800cc engine was awaiting renovation.  The 1172 was a powerful replacement and a doddle to service, It chewed Half-shaft ends off, for a pastime. However, acceleration was great...  well... until 60, when it hit the valve bounce wall {even flat out down Haldon or Telegraph Hills}.

 

Julian

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by jcredfer
Fingers and keys

[PatB]

28 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

When the 105E came out, they made a massive song and dance about it being the world's first "production" OHV, crossflow engine.

 

It wasn't.  At least one other was produced 27 years before, with a production of over 2,000 MG J2s, not bad for 1932 - 4.

 

Coincidentally given the earlier mention, my J2, however was temporarily fitted with a 1172 Ford side valve, whilst the original 800cc engine was awaiting renovation.  The 1172 was a powerful replacement and a doddle to service, It chewed Half-shaft ends off, for a pastime. However, acceleration was great...  well... until 60, when it hit the valve bounce wall {even flat out down Haldon or Telegraph Hills}.

 

Julian

 

Was the J2 not, strictly, an OHC, rather than OHV engine? Yes, I know all OHC engines are, technically OHV, but accepted usage tends towards OHV denoting the presence of pushrods. 

[Rugd1022]

When the Mini was being developed it was originally going to have the 948cc engine but it was decided the 848cc version would be smoother running so the idea was ditched.

 

Remarkably it would take eight years for the standard Mini saloon to be given a larger capacity engine, it wasn't until the Mk2 range was launched in September '67 that the 998cc engine from the Riley Elf and Wolseley Hornet was fitted. When the Mk2 was launched it was hoped by many that the sliding windows of the Mk1 would be ditched in favour of the windup windows that the Elf and Hornet had already gained in '66, but it wasn't to be and many period road test reviewers were disappointed by this. The Mk2 facelift and upgrades were very much left until the last minute, with letters going back and forth between Longbridge and the supply chain because retooling for the new items such as the front grille and rear lights hadn't been decided on in time, this resulted in 22,000 cars being sent to dealerships without them!  The whole project was seen as a way of pairing back costs and simplifying the production process, one idea mooted at board level was to do away with the two separate Austin and Morris identities but this didn't take place until the Mk3 range was introduced in October '69 (The Austin and Morris names continued to be shown on log books for years afterwards though). Ironically some of the changes actually added to these costs, an example being the new style Mk2 badging which cost more to make than the earlier Mk1 style. The simple cast metal 'Austin Mini' and (Morris) 'Mini Minor' bootlid badges of the Mk1 were replaced by new items for the entire range of 850s, 1000s, Coopers and Cooper Ss consisting of six different chromed pieces and four different plastic inserts, then there are the different permutations of bonnet badges to add to the mix.... these are the front and rear badges for my Mk2 Cooper S.... it's no wonder the badging was simplified for the Mk3s two years later....!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Rugd1022

[jcredfer]

2 hours ago, jcredfer said:

When the 105E came out, they made a massive song and dance about it being the world's first "production" OHC, crossflow engine.

 

It wasn't.  At least one other was produced 27 years before, with a production of over 2,000 MG J2s, not bad for 1932 - 4.

 

Coincidentally given the earlier mention, my J2, however was temporarily fitted with a 1172 Ford side valve, whilst the original 800cc engine was awaiting renovation.  The 1172 was a powerful replacement and a doddle to service, It chewed Half-shaft ends off, for a pastime. However, acceleration was great...  well... until 60, when it hit the valve bounce wall {even flat out down Haldon or Telegraph Hills}.

 

Julian

 

 

[jcredfer]

1 hour ago, PatB said:

Was the J2 not, strictly, an OHC, rather than OHV engine? Yes, I know all OHC engines are, technically OHV, but accepted usage tends towards OHV denoting the presence of pushrods. 

 

Yes, OHC crossflow, it was my typing error.  It had a row of finger tappets either side of the Cam, which were a curved taper and adjusted by an eccentric bearing which looked rather like a broad nut and bolt with a hole down the bolt.  Undo the nut, rotate the bolt so the finger tappet moved in or out, tighten and check.

 

Julian

 

[alastairq]

12 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

When the 105E came out, they made a massive song and dance about it being the world's first "production" OHC, crossflow engine.

  The 105E Engine [and the 123E] were OHV only, not crossflow.

Indeed, right up until the Cortina, 1500cc engine, were all known nowadays as 'pre-crossflow'' Ford engines.

The crossflow version did not arrive until 1967, seen in the first [2nd, really, if truth were known]..Escorts.

Of course, all made very confusing by referring to the family of engines above as ''Kent ' engines...

 

The engine used in the 105E ANglia was first used in production in the 107E Prefect....which was the old 100E bodyshell , axles, etc with the OHV engine / gearbox used in the 105E Anglia...a sort of trial run, perhaps?  So really almost  the same production dates as the Mini.

[Oldddudders]

I thought crossflow arrived with the Mk 2 Cortina "New Cortina is more Cortina".

[alastairq]

6 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I thought crossflow arrived with the Mk 2 Cortina "New Cortina is more Cortina".

it appears the Mk2 cortina started out life with the pre-crossflow Kent engines....going over to crossflow cylinder heads in around 1967

[Oldddudders]

Indeed it did - but I think they were in the Cortina before the Escort was launched, which I thought was 1968. 

[alastairq]

I once owned a 1967 Escort 1300 GT

[Oldddudders]

1 minute ago, alastairq said:

I once owned a 1967 Escort 1300 GT

Ah. Mine was 1969. H reg.