Folks,
Below is an extract from the September VMR electric Newsletter, relating to a decision recently made by the VSCC committee which crucially affects our cars and our ability to compete in them. Please write to the VSCC secretary if you concur with the content, as suggested. And I would be interested to know the views of fellow Register members on the topic. Many thanks.
As many of you will know, the VSCC has expended a great deal of energy since the beginning of the year in reviewing their eligibility rules. A detailed questionnaire was circulated among its members in the spring, the result of which was that the club decided to expand the list of cars eligible to enter its events.
To set the scene, a bit of VSCC history. When the VSCC was founded back in 1934, the members decided that December 31st 1930 would be the cut-off date for eligible cars, the thinking being that, in general, cars of the twenties were hand-built, designed primarily for driving rather than mere transport and exhibited qualities of construction, design and handling not found in the majority of cars built after that date. Not long after the War, pressure from owners of the better quality cars of the thirties resulted in the VSCC introducing a Post Vintage Thoroughbred (PVT) list of cars, built up to 1940, which their committee deemed to have qualities reminiscent of the cars of the twenties and which would be eligible for the majority of club events. These included Alvis, Riley and the OHC MGs among numerous others.
The outcome of this year’s VSCC questionnaire was that a significant number of members wished to see the PVT list expanded, and many felt that the eligibility date should be moved to 1940, thereby bringing all pre-war cars under the club’s eligibility umbrella. One of the advantages for doing this would be to discourage the current trend of breaking up ineligible cars of the thirties to provide spares for eligible cars, or to provide the basis of eligible specials. However, a more compelling reason was to return the VSCC to an eligibility regime based purely upon date rather than quality, which is a subjective criteria and one which encourages marque snobbery and elitism which should have no place in any respected car club. This is the view of your Editor, for the reasons given in the M 128 Editorial. (Those traditionalists within the VSCC who fear a ‘swamping’ of thirties cars should remember that eligibility does not mean automatic entry into VSCC events, since every VSCC event has its own entry restrictions and these need not all be changed. For example, events which are open only to vintage cars could simply remain so.)
Now, the VSCC has an eligibility sub-committee who were tasked with sorting all this out and they reported back to the main committee on the results of the questionnaire in June. Their recommendation was that the PVT list be expanded and they were therefore tasked by the main committee with preparing a list of cars to be added to the list, in accordance with the wishes of the general membership. At this point, the VMR submitted a comprehensive and detailed proposal to the eligibility sub-committee, proposing five different options for including various Minors of the thirties in the expanded PVT list. These ranged from including the OHC SWB cars built between January and July 1931, and whose specification is identical to those currently-eligible 1931 season cars built before the New Year, through the SV scuttle tank models of 1931 which share the same chassis and bodies as their OHC and vintage contemporaries, through the later SV models, the LWB models, both OHC and SV, and finally the coachbuilt SV specials. Specifications, chassis numbers, build dates and photographs of every model were included in the proposal.
Presumably the Sub-Committee’s recommendations were further debated by the VSCC’s main Committee, which includes both strong supporters of admittance of all 1930s cars, as well as those who wish to see no change at all. It would appear that the traditionalists won the day, and from the types of 1930s Morrises presented, only the OHC Minors, which must include the long wheelbase models built up to August 1932, gained acceptance.
Apart from the apparent anomaly of including the LWB OHC cars while excluding the lighter and more sporting SWB SV cars of the 1931 season, this decision was not unreasonable. (It is doubtful whether the committee realized that they were including the LWB models – they were probably trying to include the ‘transition’ models – those cars built up to July 1931 and whose specification is identical to the cars built before the New Year. A better and more informed decision might have been to include the “1931 season SWB OHC Minors”. The decision is, however, good news for our members who own LWB OHC cars.)
However, what makes this decision completely derisory is what happened next. Left on the new list were all the chrome-radiator Austin Sevens – the pre-Ruby cars built up to 1934. Surely, if the Sevens built up to 1934 are included, then logically, the Minors built up to 1934 should also remain on the list? Nobody can argue that the Minor was not the better car. If the Sevens were included on the list only because they represented inexpensive entry-level cars for younger members (a demographic group we are all keen to encourage), why does a young member with a SV Minor remain specifically rejected! This disgraceful decision completely ignores and distorts our motoring history and is a slap in the face for a Register which has energetically promoted the VSCC since its inception. (And to make matters worse, it turns out that specials, built recently from cannibalized Austin 7 Rubies are eligible, but standard Rubies in original condition are not! Such idiotic rules can only encourage the wanton destruction of still more original pre-war cars, not to mention laying open the VSCC to considerable and justifiable scorn from the broader old car movement.) Let us be clear. The Seven is a wonderful car and holds a special place in the history of British motoring. But the Minor was the better car – OHC or SV – than the contemporary Seven and sales figures were not that disparate during the years that both cars were in parallel production.
Perhaps more significantly, the result of this decision is that the VSCC has now extended eligibility to certain makes of car, not based upon age or quality criteria (the twin kingpins of the original 1930 cut-off date and the subsequent PVT list), but rather on purely subjective prejudice. For a club which views itself as the leading worldwide club for early cars, such a decision can only be described as irresponsible and entirely indefensible. The fact that a LWB Austin 7 Box saloon is now eligible, but not a scuttle tank SV 2-seater is breathtaking, to say nothing of the original Minor specials of the ’thirties such as the 70 mph tuned McEvoys which remain ineligible, while a hacked up 1939 Austin Ruby is welcomed as a post-vintage thoroughbred!
An appeal was made to the committee which was reviewed at their August committee meeting - the result was that the decision stands. However, that is not the whole story. There remain within the VSCC numerous SV Minors which have been happily and successfully competing for many years. Many have MG radiators on them and purport to be M Type MGs - which they are not, and some claim to be specials based on vintage Minor chassis, but with exotic engines fitted, but have in fact been recreated from destroyed SV Minors. It remains to be seen whether the VSCC will make any move to clean up their act in the light of their recent decision. We think it highly unlikely. (As an amusing aside, there is a 1930 M Type in the National Motor Museum at Beaulieu which has been used as an originally standard for generations of M restorers. The car received a facelift a few years ago, when it was discovered that the number stamped on the chassis starts with SV!)
So where does this decision leave the VMR – a club which has consistently and energetically promoted the advantages of VSCC membership and its events to its members? Some VSCC committee members who strongly supported our cause feel that it would be ludicrous for us to continue to encourage VMR members to join the VSCC after the rejection we have received from the VSCC committee. On the other hand, numerous members of the VSCC have strongly supported the Register since its inception and the VSCC is able to provide a far greater range of high quality sporting events for our vintage Minor-owning members than the Register can hope to do with our relatively limited resources. In particular, the Light Car Section of the VSCC is a wonderful backwater and their committee supports us in every way possible in return for such support as we can offer them. So we will continue to support the VSCC in future, notwithstanding their apparent inability to make sound and balanced eligibility decisions.
If, as a VMR member or friend of the Register, you agree with the foregoing and believe that the Minor is being unfairly treated by the VSCC in comparison to the Austin Seven and other cars, may I appeal to you to write to the Secretary of the VSCC and make him aware of your views. He is Mike Stripe, The Secretary, The Vintage Sports-Car Club, The Old Post Office, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, OX7 5EL. Thank you for your support!
VSCC eligibility of Minors
Moderators: Ian Grace, Will Grace
Here we have a FAKE VSCC rally number, printed by the owner and then spattered with artificial mud to fool the unsuspecting that the car had been entered on a VSCC trial. It was stuck to Roger Bird's SV Minor when he turned up at a VSCC driving test day at Brooklands. Spotted by Barry Rogers. Probably NOT the best way to tackle the eligibility issue. 
-
prharris25
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Liss, Hampshire.
-
prharris25
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Liss, Hampshire.
I agree !! ......which is why the 1960's were (in my view) a great time to own a vintage or thirties car. Nobody had to prove anything, the lesser mortals belonged to a local club (in my case the Bean Car Club) and the knobs belonged to the VSCC or BDC or RREC etc etc. We all knew our place and even ordinary cars were useable as everday transport. Indeed, most of us could not afford anything else !
From the 1970's, a certain amount of snobbery started creeping in and I well recall being held in some awe when I arrived at a Morris Register noggin in my 1929 Morris Cowley yet the same car a week previously had been only very grudgingly allowed to park in a back row at the Bullnose Club Oxford Rally. Funny old world.
From the 1970's, a certain amount of snobbery started creeping in and I well recall being held in some awe when I arrived at a Morris Register noggin in my 1929 Morris Cowley yet the same car a week previously had been only very grudgingly allowed to park in a back row at the Bullnose Club Oxford Rally. Funny old world.
Paul,
Some food for thought. This is exactly my take of trends over the last 30 years or so. I think the start of the snob era was really when prices took off in the seventies and the two phenomena are probably closely related. If there were a club for pre-war cars whose value was GBP 8k (for examples in sound condition) or over (plus Austin Sevens), then I'm willing to bet that the range of eligible cars would almost exactly map to the current VSCC eligibility envelope.
One of the arguments I heard against allowing in all thirties cars, while all twenties cars are eligible, was that twenties cars, no matter how crude, have a certain charm that thirties cars don't. This might be true, but then thirties cars are now all over 60 year old and so relatively are far more removed from modern cars than VSCC-eligible cars were fifty years ago or more. The sight of any pre-war car on the roads today is as head-turning as any twenties car was in the fifties surely?
Here's what one correspondent sent to me earlier today - on the topic of how the VSCC has gone downhill since the seventies: "There are indeed many of us who are thinking on similar lines to yourself, and they are not all boring old farts like I seem to be turning into.............I remember lovely letters from Rosemary [Burke] at the VSCC, including one regarding the lwb Minor I was running when I joined (my Austin Seven, which I still have, allowed me to become a full member!)"
I came to know the VSCC Secretary Peter Hull at the Phoenix meets in the seventies - when I ran a dog of a 1932 SV Minor. He was warm, welcoming and became a lifelong friend. Not the merest hint that my car was in any way inferior. Surely we should all be big enough to enjoy seeing the older, rarer and more illustrious makes while at the same time respecting and enjoying the lesser marques - and particularly encouraging young owners who cannot afford the sky high prices for the really big/early stuff. After all, virtually all of us started with something doggy/humdrum and worked our way up through a lifetime of enthusiasm and enjoyment. Why should we deny the next generation the same?
Some food for thought. This is exactly my take of trends over the last 30 years or so. I think the start of the snob era was really when prices took off in the seventies and the two phenomena are probably closely related. If there were a club for pre-war cars whose value was GBP 8k (for examples in sound condition) or over (plus Austin Sevens), then I'm willing to bet that the range of eligible cars would almost exactly map to the current VSCC eligibility envelope.
One of the arguments I heard against allowing in all thirties cars, while all twenties cars are eligible, was that twenties cars, no matter how crude, have a certain charm that thirties cars don't. This might be true, but then thirties cars are now all over 60 year old and so relatively are far more removed from modern cars than VSCC-eligible cars were fifty years ago or more. The sight of any pre-war car on the roads today is as head-turning as any twenties car was in the fifties surely?
Here's what one correspondent sent to me earlier today - on the topic of how the VSCC has gone downhill since the seventies: "There are indeed many of us who are thinking on similar lines to yourself, and they are not all boring old farts like I seem to be turning into.............I remember lovely letters from Rosemary [Burke] at the VSCC, including one regarding the lwb Minor I was running when I joined (my Austin Seven, which I still have, allowed me to become a full member!)"
I came to know the VSCC Secretary Peter Hull at the Phoenix meets in the seventies - when I ran a dog of a 1932 SV Minor. He was warm, welcoming and became a lifelong friend. Not the merest hint that my car was in any way inferior. Surely we should all be big enough to enjoy seeing the older, rarer and more illustrious makes while at the same time respecting and enjoying the lesser marques - and particularly encouraging young owners who cannot afford the sky high prices for the really big/early stuff. After all, virtually all of us started with something doggy/humdrum and worked our way up through a lifetime of enthusiasm and enjoyment. Why should we deny the next generation the same?
With a little fear I put fingers to the keyboard on this subject!
A little over ten years ago I spent three years restoring a Morris 8. Great I hear you cry. However apart from parking in a field there was nothing I could use it for. Fond memories of VSCC Welsh Trial back in the 1980's spured me to get a vintage car so the 8 was sold and after some years in the wilderness I bought DF.
So I had my vintage car and off we went to VSCC events in the local area. I don't think I have been made to feel as welcome anywhere more than our first event (VMR asside of course), loads of introductions and loads of helpful comments and support. Not snobish at all. A Minor saloon is after all not really a sports car and what ever way you look at the lower end of the price spectrum.
These events are great fun and without the VSCC and its range of competitive and non competative events we would all be parked in fields polishing - apart from once a year at the VMR summer rally!
If the members of other clubs catering for other cars had wanted competition wouldn't they have arranged some? Ok so there might be one or two out there who would like to have a go, but if there were more than that surely someone would have been motivated to arrange something, but no.
So what is it that we are fighting for in these pages, competitions for these other cars - but history would suggest that this is not wanted. If it is therefore preservation and like minded company then there are other one make clubs with this in mind and who arguably support this aim better than the VSCC and we should support them in this goal. If its just because Minor owners are anoyed that the Austin 7 has been accepted and our cars have not then we should be thankfull that Minors saloons are not going to get destroyed to make trials specials and reflect on who it is that is being snobish within this debate.
I appologies in advance for any offence caused (and bad spelling), but this debate has been running on for a long time - lets rise above it and put our efforts into something else.
A little over ten years ago I spent three years restoring a Morris 8. Great I hear you cry. However apart from parking in a field there was nothing I could use it for. Fond memories of VSCC Welsh Trial back in the 1980's spured me to get a vintage car so the 8 was sold and after some years in the wilderness I bought DF.
So I had my vintage car and off we went to VSCC events in the local area. I don't think I have been made to feel as welcome anywhere more than our first event (VMR asside of course), loads of introductions and loads of helpful comments and support. Not snobish at all. A Minor saloon is after all not really a sports car and what ever way you look at the lower end of the price spectrum.
These events are great fun and without the VSCC and its range of competitive and non competative events we would all be parked in fields polishing - apart from once a year at the VMR summer rally!
If the members of other clubs catering for other cars had wanted competition wouldn't they have arranged some? Ok so there might be one or two out there who would like to have a go, but if there were more than that surely someone would have been motivated to arrange something, but no.
So what is it that we are fighting for in these pages, competitions for these other cars - but history would suggest that this is not wanted. If it is therefore preservation and like minded company then there are other one make clubs with this in mind and who arguably support this aim better than the VSCC and we should support them in this goal. If its just because Minor owners are anoyed that the Austin 7 has been accepted and our cars have not then we should be thankfull that Minors saloons are not going to get destroyed to make trials specials and reflect on who it is that is being snobish within this debate.
I appologies in advance for any offence caused (and bad spelling), but this debate has been running on for a long time - lets rise above it and put our efforts into something else.
-
chris lambert
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:06 am
- Location: Suffolk. U.K.
- Contact:
Jeremy,
If this debate was just about sour grapes on the part of S/V Minor owning VMR members just wanting parity with A7 owners within the VSCC then I would tend to agree with you.
The real debate (from my perspective) is the way The VSCC and it's officers handle the whole PVT process. Such as the process is, (there are no written process steps anywhere) the final decision as to which cars are granted PVT status is totally subjective and is down to the likes or otherwise of a group of people (the main committee) who actually ignored the recommendations of the Eligibility Sub Committee, whose job it was to come up with a Recommended List! A fine example of having a dog and doing all the barking yourself!
I think it is Toby who has a byeline that says "If it has got wheels or chips there will be trouble" just add the words committee & fudge in there somewhere and that sums up the VSCC's PVT list.
I don't know if anybody will take any notice, but I will continue to lobby for an open and transparent written process that we (all VSCC members) can see works effectively and fairly. Anything will be better than the nudge, nod and a wink that seemingly takes place now.
Best of all, get rid of the list completely and either go back to the founding fathers cut off date or move it on by a number of years and remove any hint of fudge, favouritism and marque snobbery.
Chris
If this debate was just about sour grapes on the part of S/V Minor owning VMR members just wanting parity with A7 owners within the VSCC then I would tend to agree with you.
The real debate (from my perspective) is the way The VSCC and it's officers handle the whole PVT process. Such as the process is, (there are no written process steps anywhere) the final decision as to which cars are granted PVT status is totally subjective and is down to the likes or otherwise of a group of people (the main committee) who actually ignored the recommendations of the Eligibility Sub Committee, whose job it was to come up with a Recommended List! A fine example of having a dog and doing all the barking yourself!
I think it is Toby who has a byeline that says "If it has got wheels or chips there will be trouble" just add the words committee & fudge in there somewhere and that sums up the VSCC's PVT list.
I don't know if anybody will take any notice, but I will continue to lobby for an open and transparent written process that we (all VSCC members) can see works effectively and fairly. Anything will be better than the nudge, nod and a wink that seemingly takes place now.
Best of all, get rid of the list completely and either go back to the founding fathers cut off date or move it on by a number of years and remove any hint of fudge, favouritism and marque snobbery.
Chris
Hi Jeremy,
You are certainly right about the camaraderie on trials. I haven’t been able to attend one for years, but they were always huge fun and very friendly affairs, and I always encourage owners to enter and have a go – or even just go along to marshal or spectate. The same goes for the club’s nav rallies and tours – at least in the Light Car ones I have been on. And I had a fantastic week in Malvern with my fabric saloon celebrating the club’s jubillee. However, my concern is with the leadership, and is not only restricted to their eligibility policies (which affect a lot more respectable thirties cars other than Minors). The trend is towards raking in as many members as possible in order to pay for the ever swelling number of full time staff, which then means sponsorship, corporate hospitality at Prescott, SeeRed which is not much more than a money-making, membership conscripting scheme far removed from vintage circles, and so on. The Bulletin is still a fantastic read, and the Light Car Section continues to uphold all that was best about the old main club – let’s hope that continues.
But you are right that we should also move on, and the EMS is my offering in this direction. I would like to see it develop into what I think the Morris Register should have been - a true register, and run in the lighthearted, amateur and enthusiastic spirit of the old VSCC. Let's see what happens.
You are certainly right about the camaraderie on trials. I haven’t been able to attend one for years, but they were always huge fun and very friendly affairs, and I always encourage owners to enter and have a go – or even just go along to marshal or spectate. The same goes for the club’s nav rallies and tours – at least in the Light Car ones I have been on. And I had a fantastic week in Malvern with my fabric saloon celebrating the club’s jubillee. However, my concern is with the leadership, and is not only restricted to their eligibility policies (which affect a lot more respectable thirties cars other than Minors). The trend is towards raking in as many members as possible in order to pay for the ever swelling number of full time staff, which then means sponsorship, corporate hospitality at Prescott, SeeRed which is not much more than a money-making, membership conscripting scheme far removed from vintage circles, and so on. The Bulletin is still a fantastic read, and the Light Car Section continues to uphold all that was best about the old main club – let’s hope that continues.
But you are right that we should also move on, and the EMS is my offering in this direction. I would like to see it develop into what I think the Morris Register should have been - a true register, and run in the lighthearted, amateur and enthusiastic spirit of the old VSCC. Let's see what happens.
-
David Whittle
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:08 am
- Location: Wantage, Oxon, UK
Black Balled
If you listen to the grapevine within the VSCC I'm afraid the campaign for equality with the Austin Seven, i.e. the admission of sidevalve cars on to the PVT list was thought to be rather rammed down the VSCC throat a bit, and upset what is described as 'The Powers That Be'. It was a bit like the corner shop telling the Bank of England it did not know what is was talking about!
Some believe this constant and perceved aggressive campaigning and the heated discussions experienced on the VSCC website, was what got the car black balled, and that a 'softly softly' approach may have ended with a rather different outcome!
Anyway, 'tis all water under the bridge now
Some believe this constant and perceved aggressive campaigning and the heated discussions experienced on the VSCC website, was what got the car black balled, and that a 'softly softly' approach may have ended with a rather different outcome!
Anyway, 'tis all water under the bridge now
OHC 1929 Tourer WE6554
-
chris lambert
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:06 am
- Location: Suffolk. U.K.
- Contact:
Re: VSCC eligibility of Minors
SHORELY SHOME MISHTAKE!!!
My new May VSCC monthly newsletter arrived today and as is my custom I filed away my April edition of the same publication. As I flicked through the pages I noticed that a new member in Dorset had a 1933 Morris Minor listed as his 'Driving Member' vehicle. Without going into all the technicalities of the different levels of VSCC membership you can only be named as a driving member if you own a car that has been classified as a Post Vintage Thoroughbred (PVT) and is therefore eligible to take part and compete in appropriate VSCC events. Now, the gentlemen in question may of course own an OHC Morris Family 8 Minor or indeed the Minor Special Coupe with the same engine, which were rather surprisingly admitted to the hallowed PVT ranks last summer when the VSCC announced that all OHC Morris Minors could now be classified as PVT's. Alternatively, they may have made an error - shock horror - and admitted a s**e valve car. Has anyone looked under his bonnet? What appears on his buff form? See the entry below:
I wonder, could this be the first ever eligible s**e valve car - quite possibly not, but an intriguing prospect!
Chris
PS If this is a case of precedent setting, could we, at some point in the not too distant future, see VSCC grids with both S/V Austin Sevens and S/V Morris Minors alongside one another? Nah, pigs haven't evolved wings yet!
My new May VSCC monthly newsletter arrived today and as is my custom I filed away my April edition of the same publication. As I flicked through the pages I noticed that a new member in Dorset had a 1933 Morris Minor listed as his 'Driving Member' vehicle. Without going into all the technicalities of the different levels of VSCC membership you can only be named as a driving member if you own a car that has been classified as a Post Vintage Thoroughbred (PVT) and is therefore eligible to take part and compete in appropriate VSCC events. Now, the gentlemen in question may of course own an OHC Morris Family 8 Minor or indeed the Minor Special Coupe with the same engine, which were rather surprisingly admitted to the hallowed PVT ranks last summer when the VSCC announced that all OHC Morris Minors could now be classified as PVT's. Alternatively, they may have made an error - shock horror - and admitted a s**e valve car. Has anyone looked under his bonnet? What appears on his buff form? See the entry below:
I wonder, could this be the first ever eligible s**e valve car - quite possibly not, but an intriguing prospect!
Chris
PS If this is a case of precedent setting, could we, at some point in the not too distant future, see VSCC grids with both S/V Austin Sevens and S/V Morris Minors alongside one another? Nah, pigs haven't evolved wings yet!
Last edited by chris lambert on Fri May 02, 2008 4:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Highlander
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:52 am
Re: VSCC eligibility of Minors
I was mentioned last year in the VSCC magazine as being a member for 50 years. This is true. To give some idea of what nonsense what car you own in the past 50 years I have had an Austin chummy, Three 9.20hp Humber saloons, two 12.50hp Alvis saloons one 16hp Sumbeam saloon, a Silver Ghost tourer, three 20hp Rolls saloons - not one of these could you call sporty but Iwas welcomed - I now own a 1933 m0rris minor and I have not told the VSCC nor will I, b....cks to them. I have twice written to the VSCC about the austin/Minor nonsense. Highlander.
Re: VSCC eligibility of Minors
Chris, Another explantion of the 1933 minor is that it may be a hybrid special with an engine from a 1933 meadows (or something else) in an earlier ohc. minor chassis. Specials are dated by their youngest main component. Another explantion is that it is something really unusal and historic such as another skinner type special or a Mcevoy (are these eligable yet!).
I think it is now inevitable that sv. minors will soon become eligiable. The old PVT list had a vague misguided logic to it but the new one seems totally random. Rather than close the issue they have now just opened the floodgates for more debate. I've been dreaming up what strange specials could now be eligable. How about a Daimler 15 engine in a rover 10 chassis?
Turning up to vscc meets as a spectator with a sv. minor seems a good idea. The more people do this the more other members will begin to understand them and except them as part of the scene. When my sv. car is finished I will definitely be doing this.
I think it is now inevitable that sv. minors will soon become eligiable. The old PVT list had a vague misguided logic to it but the new one seems totally random. Rather than close the issue they have now just opened the floodgates for more debate. I've been dreaming up what strange specials could now be eligable. How about a Daimler 15 engine in a rover 10 chassis?
Turning up to vscc meets as a spectator with a sv. minor seems a good idea. The more people do this the more other members will begin to understand them and except them as part of the scene. When my sv. car is finished I will definitely be doing this.
-
chris lambert
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:06 am
- Location: Suffolk. U.K.
- Contact:
Re: VSCC eligibility of Minors
Ashford,
I agree with all of your sentiments. I don't believe the Skinner/Bolster White Minor has got a buff form (I may be wrong), and Ian's MacEvoy has definitley been rejected. What makes me think that this Dorset Minor is not a special is that it is simply listed as a 1933 Morris Minor; not a Minor Special or Meadows Minor, which is how I have seen other Minor variants described by the VSCC. Are there any members out there who know this car and can help clarify the situation?
Chris
I agree with all of your sentiments. I don't believe the Skinner/Bolster White Minor has got a buff form (I may be wrong), and Ian's MacEvoy has definitley been rejected. What makes me think that this Dorset Minor is not a special is that it is simply listed as a 1933 Morris Minor; not a Minor Special or Meadows Minor, which is how I have seen other Minor variants described by the VSCC. Are there any members out there who know this car and can help clarify the situation?
Chris