Hoods controversy, long, humor
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2000 7:27 pm
Hi Geoff,
Jolly good to hear from you again old chap (that's the best imitation a
Kraut can do).
But seriously now, didn't mean to short change your discourse on the
folderol of hood window specifications. I guess I didn't give it enough
thought. I simply replied to what Clive had fired off in your and our
direction. The quotation Clive chose simply went along for the ride with
what I had hoped to be a little levity.
I do indeed recall your review of your family history with the Nuffield
Group. Probably it was last year you mention it. I fully respect the
unpublished information you obtained. Indeed MG standards after the mid
thirties were primarily determined by financial considerations. Believe I
speculated previously that the adaptation of our infamous Bishop's Cam
contraption was a cost cutting measure which occurred about the same time
OHC engines and factory racing were outlawed.
I've been thinking of writing a scrip for a Natter some day, one that would
follow Bob Newhart's comedy skits on the telephone. Only for the Natter it
would be the plant calling the drawing office how to assemble and deliver
what they designed and bought in to make an MG. Possibly we could make it a
project for this list while we're not driving. You would be perfect to take
the lead on this project. An example subject - gas tank sending unit:
Plant: Hello, drawing office? Who is this?
Plant: Oh, Nigel. Director of the off-side panel fitting department?
Plant: Would you be a good chap and get me director of fluid containment.
Plant: A choice? Well get me the low viscosity chap?
Plant: He's on holiday with BP? Oh, but you can get me his fourth
assistant.
Plant: Oh, hello Bradley? This is Philip in final assembly.
Plant: Well what you can do for me is stop supplying petrol tanks with too
many holes.
Plant: You say all the holes are either threaded for something or another,
except the one with the flip-cap on top for entertainment? Don't you have a
better grasp of the situation?
Plant: Our problem is the gas runs out on the line, no bloody matter what we
do! Even before the drivers can get to them for road testing.
Plant: Yes, now you've got it, through those holes so the sender unit won't
fall out!
Plant: Why did you draw them that way?
Plant: Now that seems a bit silly. Simply because your office could source
them cheaper and that's good?
Plant: No that's bad, can't get my boys to stop smoking, can't keep the
petrol in, and can't get your attention about the seriousness of this
matter!
Plant: Oh, that's it. Fix the cheaper tank with a reduction in the petrol
allotment? And you'll pass it along to accounting that we have found a cost
saving measure that corrected a cost saving problem?
Plant: Then copy management on that also, and put in for a bit of a raise
for me too. What do you say?
Cheers, Peter
PS: Impressive Singer. I remember working a lot on several RR PIIIs. Had
power brakes too! All mechanical, you know. But fancy this. Had a
mulitple plate clutch off of the trany's output shaft which was between the
pedal and an equalizer fulcrum to balance forces side to side to boot!
Faster you went, more power assist you got.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey WHEATLEY [mailto:MDandGI@webtv.net]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 7:28 PM
To: Peter Pleitner
Cc: PMS GB Ltd; mg-tabc@egroups.com
Subject: [mg-tabc] Re: TC hoods controversy
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
Jolly good to hear from you again old chap (that's the best imitation a
Kraut can do).
But seriously now, didn't mean to short change your discourse on the
folderol of hood window specifications. I guess I didn't give it enough
thought. I simply replied to what Clive had fired off in your and our
direction. The quotation Clive chose simply went along for the ride with
what I had hoped to be a little levity.
I do indeed recall your review of your family history with the Nuffield
Group. Probably it was last year you mention it. I fully respect the
unpublished information you obtained. Indeed MG standards after the mid
thirties were primarily determined by financial considerations. Believe I
speculated previously that the adaptation of our infamous Bishop's Cam
contraption was a cost cutting measure which occurred about the same time
OHC engines and factory racing were outlawed.
I've been thinking of writing a scrip for a Natter some day, one that would
follow Bob Newhart's comedy skits on the telephone. Only for the Natter it
would be the plant calling the drawing office how to assemble and deliver
what they designed and bought in to make an MG. Possibly we could make it a
project for this list while we're not driving. You would be perfect to take
the lead on this project. An example subject - gas tank sending unit:
Plant: Hello, drawing office? Who is this?
Plant: Oh, Nigel. Director of the off-side panel fitting department?
Plant: Would you be a good chap and get me director of fluid containment.
Plant: A choice? Well get me the low viscosity chap?
Plant: He's on holiday with BP? Oh, but you can get me his fourth
assistant.
Plant: Oh, hello Bradley? This is Philip in final assembly.
Plant: Well what you can do for me is stop supplying petrol tanks with too
many holes.
Plant: You say all the holes are either threaded for something or another,
except the one with the flip-cap on top for entertainment? Don't you have a
better grasp of the situation?
Plant: Our problem is the gas runs out on the line, no bloody matter what we
do! Even before the drivers can get to them for road testing.
Plant: Yes, now you've got it, through those holes so the sender unit won't
fall out!
Plant: Why did you draw them that way?
Plant: Now that seems a bit silly. Simply because your office could source
them cheaper and that's good?
Plant: No that's bad, can't get my boys to stop smoking, can't keep the
petrol in, and can't get your attention about the seriousness of this
matter!
Plant: Oh, that's it. Fix the cheaper tank with a reduction in the petrol
allotment? And you'll pass it along to accounting that we have found a cost
saving measure that corrected a cost saving problem?
Plant: Then copy management on that also, and put in for a bit of a raise
for me too. What do you say?
Cheers, Peter
PS: Impressive Singer. I remember working a lot on several RR PIIIs. Had
power brakes too! All mechanical, you know. But fancy this. Had a
mulitple plate clutch off of the trany's output shaft which was between the
pedal and an equalizer fulcrum to balance forces side to side to boot!
Faster you went, more power assist you got.
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey WHEATLEY [mailto:MDandGI@webtv.net]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 7:28 PM
To: Peter Pleitner
Cc: PMS GB Ltd; mg-tabc@egroups.com
Subject: [mg-tabc] Re: TC hoods controversy
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
