Hi Michael:
Thanks for the kind words. Its always a bit difficult to pin the blame on
any one thing. Part of the problem in Britain was Labour governments.
However a good deal of blame must lie with companies which were only
interested in maximum profits with little concern for R and D and less
concern for maintenance of plant and repair/replacement of machinery. In
the motorcycle industry in particular, much of the machinery, which
survived the war, was used until the end of production - even though it was
worn out and not capable of the tasks asked of it. It was not unusual to
see 75 year old precision machines being used for regular production, even
though they were no longer capable of real precision.
For years Britons had maintained the Imperial attitude, which saw a nation
of manufacturing traders, supplying to each other and incidentally to the
colonies. Importation was not encouraged and competition was limited due to
punitive taxation. This colonial attitude manifested itself in a kind of
national arrogance which *knew* that British products were clearly superior
to those of other countries. In league with this was the conservative
nature of the people whose best expression was the idea that "if it was
good enough for my dad it's good enough for me. Change was frowned upon
and evolution was glacial.
Part of the responsibility for this must lie with the damage and losses of
the war. While Britain won the war, it lost the economic battle which left
it unable to provide the strong start needed during the late forties and
early fifties. It's unfortunate that the Marshall Plan didn't provide for
British aid as well as German and Japanese assistance.
A friend of mine is restoring a TR3. The car is typically badly rusted and
it is not difficult to see why. Poor design, sloppy assembly and the most
serious fault - no paint on any parts of the car which were not visible to
anyone standing beside the finished vehicle. The interior panels, the
floor and none of the body were ever painted - just the outside.
My Lagonda with its bespoke body by Tickford features a handmade body of
aluminum with wood framing. None of the wood was treated in any way to
prevent rot. Underneath the car there are many sections of wood which are
structural and unprotected from weather. The subframe of the body tub was
made of many small pieces of sheet steel welded together. This was built
with large lightening holes which allowed water and mud to enter but not to
exit, thus the entire structure was quickly damaged and rendered useless.
None of it was painted or protected in any way from weather. This was a
car which cost 4000 pounds in 1957 (about $16,000 Cdn. at that time).
The national characteristics were strongly maintained by a manufacturing
industry which distrusted and discouraged an educated labor force and
prided itself on a designing staff which had largely come up through the
ranks and "knew its place". Union mentality where seniority was all that
mattered, and grievances were epidemic, continued an "us and them" mind
set.
Innovation, on those infrequent occasions when it occurred, was by trial
and error with the customer being the test pilot. Traditional and often
inferior engineering was continued long after it should have been replaced.
One only has to look at the chassis of an MGB to realize that, other than
the rack and pinion steering, it would not look out of place on an American
automobile of the late 1930s, yet it was sold into the '80s. Look at the
Lucas bullet connectors used on MGs into the seventies. Then compare them
to the connectors used on American automobiles for 20 years before that.
Look at the antique brass terminals and set screws used in the wiring of a
Rolls into the seventies. This kind of stuff disappeared in the twenties
everywhere else.
When major new ideas were introduced they were often poorly engineered and
troublesome. A good example is the Rover 2000. Other kinds of innovation
were reactionary and underfunded. The Triumph Trident motorcyce was a good
example where, instead of designing an all new engine in order to meet the
Japanese challenge, a 30 year old design with major design flaws was
widened by one cylinder to create a triple. It was the old story - too
little, too late and the result was too costly. One of the reasons that so
many British motorcycles of he late sixties and early seventies have
survived is that the Japanese bikes were so good. Dealers and owners
couldn't give away the Brit bikes. The tragedy is that this Japanese
innovation didn't happen overnight. There was ample warning.
The great pity is that nothing was done or what was done was wrongheaded
and too late to prevent what occurred. To think that the greatest auto and
motorcycle names of Britain are dead and gone - Austin and Morris, BSA and
Norton - is a sad commentary on the history of a great nation. No other
country stood by and witnessed such an amazing loss.
John McEwen
>John,
>
>I always enjoy reading your submissions: articulate, knowledgeable and to
>the point.
>
>I have a question. Wasn't "British Industry" synonomous with British
>Government? History is rife with industries bureaucritized and
>micromanaged by government with business decisions based on political
>expediency (in this case courting of the union/labour vote?),rather than on
>sound business practice.
>
>I agree with the premise that people get the government they deserve but
>the input of the populace is limited when you have an elected autocracy.
>
>The Mini has to be the penultimate example of opportunity lost. It founded
>the modern automobile industry. Imagine a design so compelling that years
>later the CEO of BMW is intent on bringing it back. Unbelievable!
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael.
|