TC hoods controversy

Post Reply
Peter Pleitner
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:53 am

TC hoods controversy

Post by Peter Pleitner » Fri Jan 28, 2000 10:53 am

Hi Clive,

A lot of the US is piled high with snow. A bit boring for MG drivers.
Geoff was just blowing some wind on your embers. Thanks for returning the
favor with some real heat!

BTW if I tried not too hard (but even too cold for that LOE) I would find
many Japanese versions of British car parts they copied quite faithfully and
produced meeting superior production tolerances than the genuine British
part they copied, probably starting with components from your Austin Seven
through the Datsun 240Z. Thank God they never bothered with the Bishop's
steering gear design though. I still maintain it must have been designed by
someone in the drawing office straight out of divinity school who possessed
an unworldly reliance on faith.

With cheers, Peter, who BTW looks forward to pointing that octagon down the
road again come spring on a steady course :)

PS. But let me state again that tossing out those camber shims supplied
some time during 1948 makes a huge and positive difference. As your
Churchhill could have said, "never has so little done so much harm to so
many TC drivers".

-----Original Message-----
From: PMS GB Ltd [mailto:100070.740@compuserve.com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 1:21 PM
To: Geoffrey WHEATLEY
Cc: PMS GB Ltd; mg-tabc@egroups.com
Subject: [mg-tabc] Re: TC tops (hoods)

Message text written by Geoffrey WHEATLEY
>Experts have come forth with
mathematical calculations proving with out any doubt that there estimate
is right and the other guys were wrong. In short, this storm in a very
small teacup has managed to take up all the available space, day by day
and now I fear week by week . <
>What was the size of the rear window?
Who knows and who cares!<

Well sorry to have bored you Geoff - but the point is if someone doesnt
try and get just something right - everyone will go fitting Datsun steering

boxes in the misguided impression they are original equipment!

Regards

Clive Sherriff

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws.
http://click.egroups.com/1/748/0/_/60353/_/949083745/

-- Check out your group's private Chat room
-- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=mg-tabc&m=1

Geoffrey WHEATLEY
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 1999 8:38 am

Re: TC hoods controversy

Post by Geoffrey WHEATLEY » Fri Jan 28, 2000 4:23 pm

HI PETER,
With all due respect if you are going to quote me please use the entire
text not selected items. I trust you have now read my response to the
issues raised by Clive which should explain my concerns over the time
spent trying to answer an unanswerable question.
As far as Japanise engineering copies, or to be more precise major
improvements to sloppy engineering concepts. I totally agree and wish
that they had tackled the killer steering box in 1936. We might have had
a drivable car by 1945!
BUT they did not so what we got is what we should have on any self
respecting TC.

I have a 1929 Singer with a twin cam armstrong box, 12 volt lighting,
mag and automatic start and...wait for it Power assisted breaks which
goes to show that the technology was available even in the 1920's but
Nuffield / Abingdon chose to go the cheap route. Thats why the whole
question of rear window size is so bloody stupid. They properly paid the
cheapest price for these items that were cut to the nearest half inch in
local semi sweat shops.

My father,who worked for MG all his working life, told me that Nuffield
paid one of the lowest pay scale throughout the motor industry until the
Unions came on the scene and got a standard wage agreement in 1950 for
the whole industry.

Apart from Oxford University Nuffield Motors was the only game in town
so you took what you could get and were happy to pay the rent each week.
This my friend, is the reality of MG production in 1930..1950 not some
dream stuff in a book written by someone who never knew who Billy
Morries was and thought that Kimber was responsible for every MG
produced.
PS I am no supporter of what the unions did to the British Motor
Industry after the war but they at least got the workers a decent wage.
They should have also phased out the peice work concept which was a
major production quality headache as owners of future British cars were
quick to find out!...I know I have owned a few of those lemons over the
years

Regards Geoff

PMS GB Ltd
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 1999 11:50 pm

TC hoods controversy

Post by PMS GB Ltd » Sat Jan 29, 2000 2:39 am

Message text written by "Peter Pleitner"
>I still maintain it must have been designed by
someone in the drawing office straight out of divinity school who possessed
an unworldly reliance on faith.<

Lovely - I've never heard that one before!!!
>>As your Churchhill could have said, "never has so little done so much
harm to so
many TC drivers".<

Regards

Clive

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests