MG K3
Printed from: Triple-M Register
Topic URL: https://www.triple-mregister.org/forums//topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3006
Printed on: 20/07/2024
Topic:
Topic author: Berthold
Subject: MG K3
Posted on: 19/11/2009 22:11:25
Message:
I have seen at coys auction 1. december with Lot number 434 : "1934 MG Factory Team Car Only Factory K3 lightweight chassis". The car has the chassisnumber K3-026.
Isn't a further K3 with the same chassis number in Switzerland. Is this the same story like numberK- 3015 ?
Replies:
Reply author: JMH
Replied on: 20/11/2009 10:51:51
Message:
As this car was at the K3-75 display last year I can only assume that is recognised as a K3, although everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
K3026 crashed & bent the chassis in it's first ever event (yes it was factory entered). the chassis was replaced by the works & the car went on to have significant & interesting history in the UK & Europe.
The first chassis was "discarded" by the factory & subsequently found it's way into a special (mostly non-MG I think, but don't quote me), where it had a pretty continuous history up until around the late 80s/90s. It appeared at auction & was subsequently rebuilt as a K3.
As ever, you pays your money & takes your choice.........
JH
Reply author: JMH
Replied on: 20/11/2009 10:54:42
Message:
To be clear, I should add that this car the "first" chassis, the one shunted, discarded & built into a special.
JH
Reply author: Bob Stringfield
Replied on: 20/11/2009 20:23:57
Message:
As stated, much the same sort of provenance as the K3 cars discussed recently.
Are all K3 cars like this? Can the good Bob Clare tell us which ones have 'doubles'?
Reply author: wiggy963
Replied on: 21/11/2009 10:35:17
Message:
I notice that the photos on the Coys website tell us that their K3026 has engine number 620AN. According to my printed copy of the TRIPLE-M REGISTER 2009 engine number 620AN is in chassis number NA0366.
Reply author: graham holdsworth
Replied on: 21/11/2009 11:43:03
Message:
Bob and Brian,Along with Bob Clares excellent Register and Mike Hawkes marvelous book K3 Dossier(1992)a must are the 3 recent articles titled 'History of the MG K3 in detail'by Malcolm Green (MGOC Mag. Nov.08 to Jan.09)absolutely essential reading for us K3 fanatics! This has the most up to date info on all the cars,a super read.
Graham(PB0602)
Reply author: F0355
Replied on: 21/11/2009 12:13:45
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by wiggy963
I notice that the photos on the Coys website tell us that their K3026 has engine number 620AN.....
Left the factory with engine number 620AK.
Reply author: JMH
Replied on: 21/11/2009 20:36:56
Message:
Doubles? If only life were so simple....... It can get much more complicated than that! Conversely, some are almost as pure as driven snow.
However, this particular chassis started life as the back bone of a K3, a month later it was damaged & replaced by the factory, then sold off as a part (not an identity) with some other minor bits (some of which, may ironically have even come from 007). It was not incorporated into another K3, far from it, and only "became" a K3 again more than 50 years later. That makes it significantly different to the other K3 case mentioned on this forum recently.
The trouble is there weren't enough K3s made to go around!
Reply author: Peter Green
Replied on: 26/11/2009 13:05:17
Message:
Please note the items posted by Peter Green and Bob Clare have been deleted for legal reasons.
Peter Green
Chairman
Bob Clare
Registrar
Reply author: peterfenichel
Replied on: 26/11/2009 13:48:42
Message:
Having followed the "sale" of this car for a while now... and having read the posts previously posted and now "withdrawn..." it is clear that the car's history is more complex than most. If the Register can not be clear and position itself as an authoritative source based on the information available to it how can the buying Club member or others obtain any reasonable data beyond the story told by a keen seller. I find this both odd and quite sad!
Surely we are not saying that the Register is not in a position to challenge (perhaps, better put, share) information about our cars?
Peter Fenichel
Reply author: leckstein
Replied on: 26/11/2009 14:18:12
Message:
Not to deviate from the topic too much, but I am always amazed at British laws regarding liable. Here, in the wild and wooley colonies, almost anything goes as long as it isn't done with malice or intentional harm. The strict, and in my humble view, over restricted UK liable laws do ,as Peter Fenichel points out, restrict vital information about our cars and many other subjects. Talk about a chilling effect on ideas and speech! This topic, along with the previous discussion on K3s , is so interesting and informative. I wish the discussion would continue, contraversy or not. I am sure the information that was posted by Peter and Bob was exactly what was known to the Register, and a disclaimer to that fact should be enough! Have I liabiled this list just now?
Mike L
Reply author: ajc
Replied on: 26/11/2009 15:00:50
Message:
Luckily the USA has started enacting State Laws that states that any libel action that takes place in the UK is unenforceable in the USA.....ie outside of it jurisdiction
hence why lots of blogs and forums are being located overseas in the US or outlying islands to shield themselves from these types of ridiculous laws and libel tourism we are now seeing in the UK.
I see Jack Straw is on the case of this today in the news today again.
Back on topic, I agree with Peter F. , if the club cannot state the facts as they see them, and are classified as an authoritative source regarding MMM cars, then what is the point of the Register. Facts are facts and should be published as such. Is not the history of this car already known anyway? I have a feeling auction houses like to talk up the history to garner interest and price, yet we should not shy away from stating the facts as they arise.
It would be remiss and misleading not to, especially to a potential new purchaser.
Reply author: Bob Stringfield
Replied on: 26/11/2009 21:12:48
Message:
Rather more on this car, including statements from the MMM Register, may be read under the heading 'Le Mans Riley' by VSCC members who have access to the VSCC Forums.
Reply author: ajc
Replied on: 26/11/2009 21:53:29
Message:
Especially as one member has photos of the Handley IoM crash and is surprised that the chassis frame was badly damaged.
Reply author: Mike Allison
Replied on: 27/11/2009 09:13:47
Message:
Hi there,
The last comment from ajc bears the nub of the argument here.
Handley bent a wheel, which can be seen clearly in the picture in the Barre Lyndon book "Grank Prix".
When the chassis files were at MG, I was one who had the priviegde of seeing them, and under "K3026", after the Mannin race, there is an order to replace the wheel and the rear axle case, which was followed by a bill to George Eyston (who owned the car) for these and associated parts... no mention of a chassis frame, or work to that.
In my discussions with Reg Jackson, he stated that "... Handley was a bit of a tearaway, and wanted to beat Freddie Dixon. So we only put four gallons of fuel into his almost empty tank". No mention of a special frame. Similarly neither Cecil Cousins nor Henry Stone, in 1967 the surviving members of racing could remember such a thing.
In my view, the thought of drilling holes in a chassis frame is laughable. It might have saved 5 or seven pound, which in the overall weight of the car is insignificant (less than 1%). Running sicteen gallons light redused the weight by around 150 lbs, getting on for 10%.
So believe who you like.
I prefer those who were there at the time.
Mike
Reply author: peterfenichel
Replied on: 27/11/2009 11:21:07
Message:
Quite a few years ago, when I was more directly involved in the commercial side of professional motorsport, I made a bet with a friend that Auction Houses would have increasing difficulty building their business model against Classic Car Dealers who had then expanded showrooms and provided the historic car enthusiast with the type of "private client" services they desired. Was I wrong!
Dealers are now few and far between and those that have survived often compete with only virtual showrooms...
And we have many more Auction Houses plus eBay, etc.!
I would refer Triple-M friends to the recent November Bulletin and the letter from Gerald Burridge on page 48 which sets out an issue with Coys which, I suspect, is not unique to that company.
Why anyone would buy (or try to sell) an interesting historic car via an Auction is frankly way beyond my understanding... ??
Peter Fenichel
Reply author: phdouchet
Replied on: 27/11/2009 17:31:39
Message:
First, I would like to thank the MMM for their comments on the Web.
All facts are correct, but it is still an ongoing discussion as to on which chassis the car at Coys have been built on.
Unfortunately for Legal reason, the MMM authorities have had to withdraw their comments.
It is disappointing in such a liberal society, that our club authorities are not able to state what they really know to be facts without fear or pressure.
Here are my comments.
Comments from Philippe Douchet, owner of K3026
Lot 434 - 1 December Auction
I am the owner of the 1934 MG K3, chassis number K3026, which I refer to as the “the Douchet Car”. Coys is offering for sale at auction on 1 December a car which purports to be chassis number K3026, which I refer to as the “Gregory Car”. For the reasons set out below I require Coys without delay to correct the catalogue description of the Gregory Car, in particular to acknowledge the existence of the Douchet Car.
It is surprising that in the Coys catalogue description no mention is made of my car (the Douchet Car). Indeed the manner in which the description treats the history of K3026, as it existed after 1934, is inaccurate and highly misleading. This could be of great concern to a purchaser who was not made aware of the situation. This description is also highly damaging to my car, by failing to mention its separate and very visible existence since I recovered all original parts of this car from Czechoslovakia in 1980. If this misleading picture is not rectified, the history and the value of my car will be adversely affected by this inaccurate description.
Specifically, the catalogue description of the Gregory Car is inaccurate and misleading in the following respects.
NEW CHASSIS FRAME IN 1934
The lot description reads:
“After this race, much of the remains of K3 026 were rebuilt, and it was then sold to Czechoslovakia, where it continued to race until being severely damaged and rebuilt once again using a special chassis made in Czechoslovakia and a Skoda engine, where it remains as a Skoda-engined special, with virtually nothing left from its original origins”.
1. There is no evidence to support the theory that after the Mannin Beg race the MG factory rebuilt K3026 on a new chassis frame. Indeed the evidence indicates that the car was repaired without replacement of its chassis before being shipped to Czechoslovakia. In this respect I, Philippe Douchet, and other well known MMM peoples disagree with the conclusion of the Triple-M Register that K3026 was rebuilt on a replacement K3 chassis by the factory in 1934.It may be possible but to date there is no formal proof that has been given to me.
2. The statement that the car existing in Czechoslovakia “remains as a Skoda-engine special, with virtually nothing left from its original origins” is not only inaccurate, but in my view is grossly misleading. In 1980 I acquired the damaged K3 chassis and front and rear axles and the original engine and gearbox and all remaining parts from K3026 in Prague, directly from the Pohl’s Brother. In my view, the damaged chassis frame that I acquired was the original factory chassis from 1934; I have always disputed that the frame was not replaced before the car was shipped to Czechoslovakia. In my opinion, this factory chassis frame was repaired and K3026 was rebuilt with all these original parts. It is on this basis that, I claim not only to own the genuine MG K3026, but my car identity is far superior to that of the Gregory Car on sale.
3. The description of lot 434 is wholly misleading in failing to recognise the existence of the Douchet car and the facts stated above, mean that all the pre-war racing history belongs to my car.
THE WAGSTAFF CAR/ the Gregory car
The lot description reads:
“In 1937, a motor racing enthusiast, C.H Wagstaff, approached the Riley factory with a view to purchasing a factory chassis with which to self-build an ERA-type clone. As his request was denied, the indefatigable Wagstaff approached MG, where his request was seen in better favour – especially as MG had by then ceased racing at the command of Lord Nuffield, but still retained a stock of Works racing parts including the now-repaired chassis of K3 026 that was hanging on the factory wall. A delighted Wagstaff quickly agreed to Cecil Kimber’s offer of the redundant Works lightweight chassis along with its associated parts as invoiced, which forms part of the history file accompanying this vehicle”.
1. There is no evidence that in 1937 Wagstaff or Else acquired the “redundant works lightweight chassis” of K3026 from the MG factory. We understand that the only document that the vendor holds in this respect is a copy of an invoice or bill of sale of 22 February 1937 from the MG factory to a Mr Else as to the sale of a chassis frame, being part number “MG425”. Therefore this invoice alone can in no way justify the claim as to the Gregory Car that the frame acquired in 1937 was the discarded chassis of MG K3026.
2. On the other hand, I have all the documents relative to the sale of my car by the Works to Czechoslovakia and all Czech and Swiss titles.
In my view, the Gregory Car is a total reconstruction, bearing no relation to K3026 whatsoever.
WHAT PETER GREGORY BOUGHT
The catalogue description reads:
“…the re(sourceful Peter Gregory approached Wagstaff, having traced the history of K3026. Gregory successfully purchased the dismantled Wagstaff Special”.
1. I understand that the remains of Wagstaff’s Riley Special were offered by the Wagstaff family some years ago to Bill Morris (now deceased). They were offered to Bill because the Riley engine was of interest to ERA enthusiasts, and Bill Morris was then the leading ERA engineer in the UK. Bill Morris described to Mr X the chassis components which Bill had inspected, namely that there were various chassis components, but no complete chassis frame, and there was no number stamping on any part of those chassis components, let alone to indicate any part was from K3026. Also, no one of the three persons who have seen the chassis before Mr P.Gregory have accepted to put in writing that they have seen a Number stamped on it.( or the contrary)
2. In my opinion, the description in Coys catalogue is also inaccurate in alleging that by acquiring the dismantled Wagstaff Special Peter Gregory acquired the original chassis frame from K3026. My position is that he did not acquire that frame, and that therefore the chassis frame on which the Gregory Car is built must be of subsequent manufacture, bearing no relation to K3026.
CONCLUSION
In view of the material inaccuracies and omissions in the Coys catalogue description of the Gregory Car, I decided to publish my comments on the MMM Website.
This is very important to bring to the attention of any person who is interested by the Lot 434, to know the inaccuracies in the catalogue description.
I, also ask Coys via a lawyer to change the catalogue and their website version,
-and to place an amended catalogue description physically on one of the aero screens of Lot 434 when the Gregory car is presented in the auction room.
-and when Lot 434 is introduced by the auctioneer on 1 December, to ensure that the correction to the catalogue descripton is clearly stated for all to hear in the auction room.
At the time of writing, I have not received a response from Coys.
Philippe Douchet
E-mail: phdouchet@bluewin.ch
Mobile : +4176 585 5563
Reply author: ajc
Replied on: 27/11/2009 19:07:25
Message:
Hello there Phillipe and thank you for reposting your comments.
Whilst not knowing what action (if any) was threatened against the Register, though if that is the case one can guess, it is refreshing to see your post in all its honesty.
These are important issues and we should not kowtow to legal threats if merely facts are stated.
Reply author: phdouchet
Replied on: 28/11/2009 10:28:30
Message:
I received this E-mail from Norman Ewing, who asked me to post it on his behalf on the MMM website.
Ph.Douchet
Normann said:
I feel I must now get involved in this K3026 discussion, because the most important point has not been mentioned. Henry Stone authenticated what Phillipe Douchet had bought. In 1987 I travelled to Switzerland and with Henry Stone examined all the pieces bought by the brothers Douchet. Although I had known about 'the purchase' three years before, I had been sworn to secrecy as Phillipe feared for the safetyof the remaining Pohl family, at that time still living behind the Iron Curtain.
Henry had been told of the cars existence only a week before at the Abingdon International, and when told that Phillipe had K3026 he remarked "The Eyston car." I asked if it wasn't a works car, and Henry replied that George treated it as his own, and had a little silver plaque with his London address behind the dashboard. He then described how he had made it a curved inlet manifold. I challenged him, saying that was over fifty years ago, and how could he remember a detail like that.He laughed and said after filing a manifold for nearly three weeks "Jacko" made him throw it away and start again."You don't forget things like that" was his reply.
Shortly after Henry and Winnie landed in Geneva we set off to examine the bits. The chassis had been repaired in a few places, and Henry pointed out the work to repair the chassis that he had overseen at the factory after the Handley crash. At no time did he ever mention that ANOTHER chassis could ever have existed. We then went through the boxes looking for the dashboard, and there behind it on the passenger side was a small silver plaque with from memory a Bayswater address. Henry was overjoyed-- "Yup,this is the Eyston car alright." I was staggered at his memory of this particular car as he had worked on so many of the works cars fifty years before.
So as far as I am concerned, there is only one K3026. The genuine one. So lets stop the nonsense. Only 33 of these cars were ever produced, now we have about sixty running around. Surely this "breeding programme" should be halted. By all means build replicas if you want to---but for heavens sake be honest and ensure that no one thinks that it is the genuine article, no matter how authentic it may be.
Norman Ewing
mgewing@polka.co.za
Reply author: F0355
Replied on: 29/11/2009 09:04:28
Message:
May I ask why the "Gregory" car that's currently on auction was displayed at the K3's 75th at Silverstone, does it mean it is considered by the Triple-M register as the original 3026? Maybe the deleted posts I missed before I could read them would have answered my question....?
Peter Steyn
Johannesburg, RSA
Reply author: peterfenichel
Replied on: 29/11/2009 15:10:41
Message:
I would hope that the Register Committe would answer the question directly, but I believe at the time (of the 75th at Silverstone) the Register believed that there were 2 cars... and that the Gregory car had been built up from the original chassis. Based on more recent evidence which has come to light and discussion which has resulted from the Gregory car being offered at auction as "K3026" I would hope that the Register would revisit that determination.
Peter Fenichel
Reply author: Peter Green
Replied on: 29/11/2009 23:06:23
Message:
Peter (Steyn)
I organised the display of K3’s at Silverstone last year. The reason I included the car you refer to was because its chassis frame was originally sold to Mr. N. G. Else, by The M.G. Car Company Ltd., as part number MG425 which is the part number for a K3 chassis. Furthermore the cars owner had told me that its chassis number was K 3026. As I expect you know the other claimant to chassis number K 3026, the car owned by Philippe Douchet, was also in the display.
Peter.
Reply author: tholden
Replied on: 29/11/2009 23:20:42
Message:
Peter, along with quite a few other "determinations" one would hope !
TH
Reply author: Bob Clare
Replied on: 30/11/2009 00:56:46
Message:
There have been a number of court cases fought out over the years about the “true identity” of old cars. In the context of a court of law, evidence can be required to be produced, oaths on telling the truth taken and, in the end for better or worse, judgements handed down by the court.
The Triple-M Register and its committee are not and never have laid claim to be either a court or an arbitration service for those minded to challenge a particular view on such matters.
The Register should always try to assist owners but only within the boundaries set by the disclaimer in the Register’s “rules”. Thus the job of the Register is;
to record information received on surviving Triple-M cars on the basis that it is given in good faith;
to question such information if it is clearly in conflict with other information received;
NOT to undertake the judgement of the merits of a case but simply record the information received.
Thus, the correct forum for determining the merits of cases such as that relating to K 3026 is through the due process of law, not through the good offices of the Triple-M Register.
Whilst I have not doubt that this matter will in due course be discussed again by the Triple-M Register committee, the hopes of some contributors to the Forum that the committee will make a decision on the merits of one case against the other are inevitably destined to be disappointed.
Bob Clare
Registrar
Reply author: peterfenichel
Replied on: 30/11/2009 20:31:38
Message:
Bob Jones has asked me to post the following on his behalf (as a new member of the Triple-M forum he is awaiting the ability to post directly):
A note for the forum.
I think a vital point is being missed in all the discussions regarding the chassis sold by the MG Car CO to Mr Else in 1937. The part number invoiced seems be to accepted by the ‘experts’ as that of a K3 chassis although as far as I know no parts list was ever published. That the chassis in question was a K3 chassis is almost certainly correct as there is factual evidence that the factory still had a stock of unused K3 chassis at that time. J.H.T.Smith also purchased a new chassis un-numbered (which became K3015) in the winter of 1936/7. There was also another un-numbered K3 chassis in the USA in the late 1970’s which was probably not sold until after the war. As has been mentioned by others there appears to be no reason for the original chassis of K3026 to have been changed, but if it were then the damaged one would certainly have been scrapped. There is just no logical reason for keeping it. In addition I am sure that the company would not have risked their reputation at anytime by selling second hand damaged parts.
Draw your own conclusions!
Bob Jones
Peter Fenichel
Reply author: F0355
Replied on: 02/12/2009 13:11:13
Message:
Does anyone have the results for the Coy's auction of December 1?
Peter Steyn
Johannesburg, RSA
Reply author: peterfenichel
Replied on: 02/12/2009 13:44:08
Message:
I've been told the car was "bid via the telephone" to £180,000 but did not sell. One has to wonder if that actually reflects a real bid or not. In my view it was very brave to set a reserve higher than that level. It seems Coys will now put the car in their London/Richmond showroom and offer it for sale by private treaty. In spite of the representations in this forum and in other forums there appears no sign that the "Gregory car" will be offered in any form other a than as K3026... !!
Peter Fenichel
Reply author: F0355
Replied on: 02/12/2009 14:35:37
Message:
Useless bit of info - Andy King had the "Gregory car" for sale circa June 2008 for £285,000.
Peter Steyn
Johannesburg, RSA
Reply author: peterfenichel
Replied on: 02/12/2009 15:06:13
Message:
Peter,
That just shows that the information coming to light more recently is a positive addition to understanding just what is being offered. We can each make our own decisions about this. And, although I do not agree with the Coys representation they are certainly entitled to their view on the car itself. What is also interesting to me is that if the "Gregory car" had been offered as a 'replica' I believe it would have attracted a pretty fair price, as it is not inexpensive to build up one of these cars, which are fun to drive and quite impressive to look at... and I suspect, in my view, the car would have sold quickly.
Peter Fenichel
Reply author: doctorbob
Replied on: 02/12/2009 16:03:34
Message:
I presume the DVLA would have an opinion on this? Two separate vehicles claiming the same identity!!?? Or am I missing something here?
Would the "Douchet" car be registerable in the UK as the "Gregory" car has already laid claim to the chassis number?
Reply author: phdouchet
Replied on: 02/12/2009 19:05:10
Message:
I'm satisfied that the Gregory car was not sold at Coys auction. It confirmed that people are much more informed than before and are not prepared to pay almost £200k for a replica.
At least this auction has giving us the opportunity for a thorough review of the situation of these two cars. New elements have surfaced there will be checked in the near future.
This forum will be inform in due time.
To reply to doctorbob, my car IS registered in the UK since 1999, as FSL696. I have always been taken aback that it is possible to get on the road two cars with the same chassis number and 2 different number plates.
It makes the charm of the UK.
Philippe Douchet
Reply author: Nick Feakes
Replied on: 02/12/2009 20:28:52
Message:
Philippe
I made a very small edit to your last post
Nick
The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Reply author: Wild Bill
Replied on: 13/01/2010 16:38:14
Message:
Sorry to add to this thread only now, but I missed it while away over the holidays. I was wondering if anyone could please comment on three points that I would like to raise having read what's been posted.
The first deals with the statement that Henry Stone could not remember such a thing. In fact, on page 33 of "The Insomnia Crew" by Henry Stone (as told to Dick Knudson), Stone says "Walt Handley distinguished himself in the Mannin Beg one year by being the first man around. His standing lap was very very close to the flying lap record; that was in a special, lightened K3 that we built. Unfortunately Wally, with new tyres that hadn't been scrubbed, collected the lamp post on the entry to the Broadway Corner which was just after the pits. He bent the rear axle casing knocking it out of alignment with the frame, so that was the end of the race." The fact that he refers to building this special lightweight car seems to suggest something truly a bit more special than merely fueling a standard, pointed-tail K3 extremely lightly. I'm also sure that everyone would be very interested to see the photos mentioned showing the damage to the car during that race, and I would kindly ask the member with these photos to post them here. I would have thought that they might well show whether the chassis had been drilled with lightening holes or not if from them one could determine that the chassis had not been badly damaged in the accident.
My second point deals with the statement that Henry Stone could recall exactly the repairs made after the Handley crash when inspecting the bits in Switzerland. On the one hand, it is said that the damage was not terribly significant, supposedly involving mainly the replacement of a wheel and the rear axle case, so one might assume that the minor repairs made to the chassis would not stick in Stone's mind. On the other hand, surely the repairs made to the Pohl chassis following his crash during the Brno Grand Prix in 1937 were more significant and might well have masked or indeed been mistaken for any previous repair work. A photo of the car following this crash can be seen here: http://img.prewarcar.com/prewar/cars/MG_K3_crash_400RB.jpg . Also, this site corraborates that Pohl's race number for Brno was 10 as seen in the crash photo: http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/gp376.htm#44 . Obviously the other parts of what Stone referred to as the "Eyston" car could well have remained whether or not the chassis had been replaced, which is what is actually being discussed here.
Finally, why is it so laughable to drill lightening holes in the chassis when this was used by other race teams at the time and was also used by MG in the R-Type which appeared shortly thereafter?
Reply author: McEvoy
Replied on: 14/01/2010 22:43:54
Message:
Interesting points Bill and just to keep the record straight the R type chassis was indeed kept as light as possible but not by drilling but by punched and swaged holes that were part of the frame manufacturing process.
Bob
Reply author: Wild Bill
Replied on: 15/01/2010 09:16:12
Message:
Yes, Bob, of course you are correct with the pressed holes being swaged to prevent cracking, as in aircraft manufacture, given that the chassis was electrically-welded sheet steel box-section instead of chassis rails. I should have been more specific here since the point that I was attempting to raise was that the weight savings of the actual material taken away from the chassis by the holes would also not have been significant in the R-Type compared to the overall weight of the car yet they still chose to use them. In fact as far as I know, the weight of an R-Type chassis was only 56 lbs., or roughly 4% of the entire car, and about half of that of the standard K3 chassis. In the end, any weight that one can save while maintaining structural integrity throughout a race car is good, no matter how little, as it all adds up. In my opinion, the presumption that a lightweight K3 chassis might have only saved 5-7 lbs. through the use of lightening holes (which I also think is a very conservative estimate) should not lead one to conclude that such a modification would not have been tried when the special, lightened K3 was built for Handley.
Reply author: MaGic_GV
Replied on: 15/01/2010 11:52:02
Message:
Pictures in the book 'Grand Prix' by Lyndon show the car hitting the sandbags and bouncing back into the road - the nearside rear wheel clearly looking out of kilter but there is no evidence either way of further damage...however, it appears that the damage was severe enough to ensure he stopped there and then rather than continuing... for some reason my computer refuses to scan these pix in - perhaps Bill Gates has programmed in copyright rules!
A couple of points though - IF a lightweight chassis had been used and been successful, it surely would have been repeated or copied...? There other things that might be done to lighten a car, and if I was expected to pound round Brooklands or a stressful road circuit, I might not be too happy about too many extra holes!
Graham
Reply author: Wild Bill
Replied on: 19/01/2010 13:55:49
Message:
I, too, have considered why the lighweight chassis would not have been repeated or copied. Of course, firstly this special lightweight car might not actually have been considered as "successful" given that Handley only managed one lap during the race despite the fact that he posted very low lap times in practice, almost matching previous-winner Freddie Dixon in his specially-prepared Riley, and set a qualifying lap record of 74.82 mph. However, I believe the actual explanantion may well simply be one of timing. The 1934 Mannin Beg race took place on 1st June 1934. As far as I know, the last K3 to leave the factory after that date was K3030 only a couple of weeks later (guarantee plate issued 16th June 1934). Equally, after this date much of the factory development effort was focused on the new Q-Type and, later, the R-Type (not to mention the 1100cc Monoposto Magnette which was announced in March 1935). Of course, one cannot rule out that a lightweight chassis was not chosen for subsequent longer races such as the Brooklands 500 miles or Le Mans due to the reliability concerns you have mentioned, but properly-engineered lightening holes should not be a cause for concern in my opinion. More likely, the factory may well have decided that the weight savings did not justify the expense of time that such a modification would take on an already stretched race department, opting to prioritise other work.
I believe that the pictures from Lyndon's 'Grand Prix' are inconclusive and would still very much like to see any detailed photos of the chassis rails of Handley's car, either before or after the race, which have previously been alluded to in this post.
Reply author: David.Hince
Replied on: 20/05/2010 13:40:52
Message:
I gather that Coys have now sold the Gregory K3026 car. Apparently it's still in the UK, so perhaps soon we might see it back on the track.
Reply author: etlanpa
Replied on: 20/05/2010 13:57:44
Message:
Do we know how much for David?
Reply author: sas
Replied on: 04/11/2010 21:10:32
Message:
Hello everyone and this MG K3 thresd.
I am only posting this to bring it close to the:-
Fake Cars thread, started on 22 Oct 2010 so that all interested parties can refresh themselves with the posts here, if needs be.
Sean
Triple-M Register : https://www.triple-mregister.org/forums//
© 2003-2024 MGCC