spridgets
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Magazines = facts?

To: Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>
Subject: Re: Magazines = facts?
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1904 14:47:16 -0500
Cc: spridgets@autox.team.net
References: <42.b0f8903.26fdbe96@aol.com> <39CC6A78.5B0873F6@brit.ca>
Trevor,

Two things:

1. The Euro-spec 1500 had much more power

2. The 1500 Midget weighs quite a bit more than most 1275/1098/948

So, for people in NA, the question is: does the increased power of a 
US-choaked 1500 overcome the weight penalty of the rubber bumpers 
(and all the other stuff that grew on the spridgets, like carpeting, 
bigger seats, etc.)?

Jeff

>Daniel1312@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>  Stuff printed in magazines are not facts any more than 150mph E-types were
>>  facts when they were road tested by magazines.
>
>   Ok guys, this is REALLY missing the point and picking on
>meaningless surrounding details.
>
>   I am not saying that everything printed by magazines is
>true, but really, what "secret motif" would a September
>2000 issue of Practical Classics magazine have to lie
>about the 1500 being faster?
>
>   It doesn't take a master of subtleties to notice there's
>a difference between an advertising pitch of a company
>that has everything to gain (Frank's reference to Ginsu
>knives and Miracle Car Wax), and classic car magazine intended
>to give hobbyists information on old cars.
>
>   Last time this discussion went around, this issue of PC
>magazine wasn't yet written, but very similar numbers
>came out from other sources. The Brooklands Gold Portfolio
>for example, says basically the same information give
>or take a tenth here and there.
>
>   Is it a conspiracy by ALL print companies, books and
>magazines, to lie about 1500s being faster than 1275s?
>
>   Do we need Austin Powers to come charging in to save
>us all from this horrible cartel?
>
>   A more important point, what's with the 1275cc mental
>blocks, and the religious devotion to defending it?
>
>   Everyone can understand the 1098 is faster than the 948,
>because it's bigger.
>
>   Everyone can understand the 1275 is faster still than the
>1098, because it's bigger.
>
>   Why is it so hard for some people to accept that the
>1500cc is faster than the 1275, because it's bigger? You
>may not like that the engine was made by Triumph, but the
>two engines are essentially the same design, pushrods,
>2 valves per cylinder, non-crossflow, etc.
>
>   Do you really beleive that somehow Austin/MG "magic"
>lives on in the design so that, for no apparent
>reason, it can outperform a similar design with
>over 200 more cc?
>
>   Is the law-of-displacement somehow maximized at 1275cc,
>and everything larger starts to lose?  Should we then
>be surprised that 7 liter cadillacs can even generate
>enough power to move their own sorry own weight?
>
>   After all, they are burdened by almost an additional
>6 liters, not just the minute 200cc the poor 1500cc
>engine is saddled with!
>
>   Accept, people. Accept.
>
>--
>Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
>Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
>ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna get my drink on.

-- 


__________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Assistant Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision
<http://www.molvis.org/molvis>
<mailto: jboatri@emory.edu>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>