Exceptionally, I am posting the text of the M 131 editorial in advance of publication on the Forum. I would welcome comments and feedback which I can format for including in the body of the Magazine. Remember that this is going out to the general membership and is not a reflection of active forum contributors and restorers.
The title of the Editorial is 'Time and Time Again'.
"The Vintage Minor Register was founded on a beautiful summer evening back in 2001, when two vintage Minor owners met in the Orchard at Prescott, and another ex-owner passed by. A few weeks later, an experimental first issue of this Magazine was distributed from Grand Rapids to sixty known owners of vintage Minors. Around 150 were known to exist at that time, as a result of personal research that had commenced ten years earlier. The cars on that list represented less than half of the number now known to have survived. We held our first rally in Cambridgeshire in the summer of 2001 – on our first anniversary. A dozen Minors gathered at the Royal Oak at opening time on a breezy Saturday morning – very probably the largest gathering of Minors since they left Cowley over seventy years earlier.
In the Register Ramblings of that first Magazine issue, the Minor was referred to as a misfit in the vintage world, and Anders Clausager, then curator of Gaydon, was quoted as saying that the Minor was a non-sporting car of no particular distinction. He was wrong. On page 13, a report of a journey to Yorkshire from Hounslow in a 1929 Minor tourer was reprinted from the Winter 1967 issue of the Morris Eight Tourer Club magazine. If anyone doubts the sporting character of the Minor, or its robust capabilities as a light car, they should read this article by the late Roy Hogg of his happy wanderings in MT 3286.
Those familiar with Star Trek Voyager will no doubt remember the epic final episode ‘Endgame’ where Captain Kathryn Janeway, now a Starfleet Admiral, returns to the past, and to the Delta Quadrant to bring her crew safely home, destroying a Borg transwarp hub in the process. When she meets herself as a Captain, twenty-three years in the past, Captain Janeway is skeptical of the knowledge that her future self brings to save her and her crew. If we received a visitor from the future, would we want to know what the future holds for our cars?
Like Voyager’s crew, many will not survive. Even today, the destruction of our cars for spares continues unabated. Mostly saloons and long wheelbase examples, of course, but even open Minors are not entirely immune. Of the cars that survive today in more or less one piece, a clear majority are not being driven or actively restored and many of these are slowly and insidiously rotting into probable oblivion in the not too distant future. Owners who would not have thought twice about driving their cars twenty or even ten years ago, now no longer feel inclined do so, but this seems to be an affliction unique to Minor owners. Sometimes they sell their cars on, more often they lay them up to sink quietly on their springs.
Since that first rally seven summers ago, Register membership has tripled, but no more Minors appear at our rallies. The record was 13 back in 2003 – the 75th Anniversary of the Minor. Since then, that number has not been surpassed. The Austin Seven also celebrated an anniversary a few years ago. The Austin Seven clubs hoped to gather 750 examples at Beaulieu. They failed. Only 600 turned up. What a disappointment that must have been for the organizers. Six hundred frail little baby Austins, many older than the earliest Minor. The same frail little Austins have virtually swamped the Vintage Sports-Car Club in recent years, where they compete with great gusto and equal success in both Light Car Section and Main Club sporting trials, driving tests and race meetings in huge and growing numbers. Their influence upon the VSCC has become so strong that all examples built before 1935 have recently been inducted into the hallowed Post-Vintage Thoroughbred List, so expect to see even more of them out and about on the hills and on the track in future.
While we are looking at numbers, let us also take a sideways glance at the M Types. Just 3,200 were built, and we are currently tracking around 450 surviving examples – that’s about fifteen times the survival rate of the Minor. The reader can form his own opinion as to how many of these are Minors in M coachwork, but the more salient point is that there is sufficient raw enthusiasm out there for there to be far more M Types on the road and in active competition than Minors which were made in vastly greater numbers.
So what is going on with the Minors? There is certainly a good deal of heroic restoration under way and some ‘new’ cars emerge every year. But we seem in general not to be making any headway whatsoever, which is hugely frustrating. For every restoration that is completed, another car or two simply disappears without trace. Number plates are stripped, chassis disassembled when they should be being assembled and bodies appear on eBay from chassis that seem to have been beamed off the planet. Or are they cloaked? Are aliens abducting our cars? The Borg, perhaps?
Last year a huge effort was mounted to gain VSCC eligibility for the thirties Minors. That effort largely failed, while the thirties Sevens cruised into eligibility – without so much as a formal case being presented by the Seven clubs. Our case failed because of a number of complex factors, but chief among them was the perception that the Minor is simply not up to the game – a black sheep, a misfit, an object of derision - Morris Bloody Minors as they came to be irreverently referred to on the VSCC forum.
But how can this be? Any student of automotive engineering would tell you that the Minor is a far better piece of motor engineering than the Seven, and every bit as robust as the M. And we know that Sevens and Ms are all over the vintage car scene like a rash every weekend.
To be perfectly blunt, and in the full knowledge that this is a sweeping and highly unfair generalization, the problem is not the cars, but the owners. If we cannot bring ourselves to drive our own cars to our own rallies and pub meets, then how on earth can we possibly hope to convince such an august body as the VSCC to let us in to play with the Sevens and others? Not everyone wants to join the VSCC, of course, but we should all want to see our cars being driven – whether on the Welsh or to Wales – to the Lakeland or to the Lakes. And if they were, then they would earn and enjoy a far higher reputation in the broader pre-war motoring world.
The Vintage Minor Register was founded with a single aim – to save and to return to the open road as many Minors as possible. Virtually everything we do is aimed at striving for this goal. Spares are horse traded on the forum on a daily basis. A master chassis register and membership list is updated daily on the website so that owners of like cars can find, help and encourage each other. Rallies and pub meets worthy of far larger clubs are laid on regularly – indeed the Register has earned a reputation for hitting far above its weight.
If we want our cars to survive into the future in meaningful numbers, then we had better get them bolted together now, get them back on the road and put some miles on them. Many miles."
M 131 Editorial
Moderators: Ian Grace, Will Grace
Re: M 131 Editorial
Ian,
This should not be printed in the VMR magazine.
Minor owners can do with thier cars what they want, they can participate or not as they see fit, each person is entitled to thier opinion and thier way.
Including this in the magazine will be damaging to the VMR and potentially drive active and in-active members away.
The arguments over VSCC eligibility have been aired before, again continuing this route will further damage the relationship between the VMR and the VSCC. It will also impact on the reaction that Minors have when they turn up at VSCC events, we are after all the envoys of Minor motoring in the VSCC and I for one do not want the views of the VMR to spoil my enjoyment of VSCC events.
I am sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but this debate has had its day and needs to be put to rest.
Jeremy
This should not be printed in the VMR magazine.
Minor owners can do with thier cars what they want, they can participate or not as they see fit, each person is entitled to thier opinion and thier way.
Including this in the magazine will be damaging to the VMR and potentially drive active and in-active members away.
The arguments over VSCC eligibility have been aired before, again continuing this route will further damage the relationship between the VMR and the VSCC. It will also impact on the reaction that Minors have when they turn up at VSCC events, we are after all the envoys of Minor motoring in the VSCC and I for one do not want the views of the VMR to spoil my enjoyment of VSCC events.
I am sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but this debate has had its day and needs to be put to rest.
Jeremy
Re: M 131 Editorial
Hi Jeremy,
You are probably right - I have several written anyway! It wasn't meant to be another VSCC piece specifically. I'm just trying to understand why, when we have four time as many members as when we started, and now also have SV Minors in the club, that we don't get any more cars actually out and about. Simple maths would seem to predict that we should have about 45 cars at our summer rallies and at least a dozen at Peatling and Barrington. Incidentally, we now have 51 SV Minors in the Register which in an increase of about 20 from this time last year, which is very good news. The forum has exploded into action over the last few months which is also great news. I just wish I knew the secret to causing the same thing to happen with getting cars back on the road, but I guess rebuilds take a lot longer than signing up for the forum!
But then, we have things like Beaulieu this weekend. This has to be the greatest opportunity to get the word out about the Register to other owners that we have ever had in the history of the Register, but we can only muster a lineup (if you can call it that!) of TWO cars! Of course every owner can do what they like with their cars and they don't have to turn out on demand, but I would have thought that we would want to collectively do better than this.
And it does seem that the Minor has a stigma attached to it - particularly SV examples, which is entirely unfair. Remember John Dixon's trips across Russia, and Gilg's trans-Africa - both in SV cars? The only thing I can think of doing to change this is to show our cars out there doing good stuff on the roads.
We have a core of vintage Minor owners who are very active - and they turn out equally for VMR and VSCC events - about a dozen or more of them. I'd like to come up with some formula that would see equal numbers of SV cars doing their thing. That was what was behind the VSCC eligibility application, but it was an idea before its time. This is definitely the age of the Austin Seven!
You are probably right - I have several written anyway! It wasn't meant to be another VSCC piece specifically. I'm just trying to understand why, when we have four time as many members as when we started, and now also have SV Minors in the club, that we don't get any more cars actually out and about. Simple maths would seem to predict that we should have about 45 cars at our summer rallies and at least a dozen at Peatling and Barrington. Incidentally, we now have 51 SV Minors in the Register which in an increase of about 20 from this time last year, which is very good news. The forum has exploded into action over the last few months which is also great news. I just wish I knew the secret to causing the same thing to happen with getting cars back on the road, but I guess rebuilds take a lot longer than signing up for the forum!
But then, we have things like Beaulieu this weekend. This has to be the greatest opportunity to get the word out about the Register to other owners that we have ever had in the history of the Register, but we can only muster a lineup (if you can call it that!) of TWO cars! Of course every owner can do what they like with their cars and they don't have to turn out on demand, but I would have thought that we would want to collectively do better than this.
And it does seem that the Minor has a stigma attached to it - particularly SV examples, which is entirely unfair. Remember John Dixon's trips across Russia, and Gilg's trans-Africa - both in SV cars? The only thing I can think of doing to change this is to show our cars out there doing good stuff on the roads.
We have a core of vintage Minor owners who are very active - and they turn out equally for VMR and VSCC events - about a dozen or more of them. I'd like to come up with some formula that would see equal numbers of SV cars doing their thing. That was what was behind the VSCC eligibility application, but it was an idea before its time. This is definitely the age of the Austin Seven!
-
prharris25
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Liss, Hampshire.
Re: M 131 Editorial
Ian,
I totally agree with Jeremy, publication of this would do more harm than good. As you know, I am not, and never have been, a fan of the VSCC but I would defend to the last the right of anybody to do what they wish with their cars. I particularly recall one idiot in the 1960's who rolled his very nice Chummy at some VSSC driving tests and did a vast amount of damage to a very original and good car. His major concern ? ...which wheel lifted first !
Back to Minors, ignoring the VSCC, there is nothing wrong with them or their owners. The fact is that the Austin Seven had a head start. Not only were they produced for many more years than the Minor, in neglected old age during the birth of the old car movement, they were the better car to have. They were crude, but kept going when many of the Minors were being taken off the road with expensive engine problems. Of course the Minor is the better car from an engineering point of view, but it was the Seven that had the lead when it came to use as a daily hack for those who wanted a cheap but reliable entry to the old car world. Clearly this is a trend that has continued.
Being old enough to remember proper scrapyards, Austin Sevens were plentiful, rarely did you see ohc Minors and although sv cars were being broken, their numbers were small compared with the Austin.
I think the VMR is doing a grand job and has come in in leaps and bounds over the past few years. It puts the "other" Morris clubs to shame in terms of information sharing and pure enthusiasm. Keep up the good work !
Paul.
I totally agree with Jeremy, publication of this would do more harm than good. As you know, I am not, and never have been, a fan of the VSCC but I would defend to the last the right of anybody to do what they wish with their cars. I particularly recall one idiot in the 1960's who rolled his very nice Chummy at some VSSC driving tests and did a vast amount of damage to a very original and good car. His major concern ? ...which wheel lifted first !
Back to Minors, ignoring the VSCC, there is nothing wrong with them or their owners. The fact is that the Austin Seven had a head start. Not only were they produced for many more years than the Minor, in neglected old age during the birth of the old car movement, they were the better car to have. They were crude, but kept going when many of the Minors were being taken off the road with expensive engine problems. Of course the Minor is the better car from an engineering point of view, but it was the Seven that had the lead when it came to use as a daily hack for those who wanted a cheap but reliable entry to the old car world. Clearly this is a trend that has continued.
Being old enough to remember proper scrapyards, Austin Sevens were plentiful, rarely did you see ohc Minors and although sv cars were being broken, their numbers were small compared with the Austin.
I think the VMR is doing a grand job and has come in in leaps and bounds over the past few years. It puts the "other" Morris clubs to shame in terms of information sharing and pure enthusiasm. Keep up the good work !
Paul.
Re: M 131 Editorial
Hi Paul,
It's been filed in the round filing cabinet on the floor! Apologies if my frustrations bubble over into the forum occasionally. Good points about Sevens having a head start, and I think the 750 MC and A7CA had a lot to do with it as well. And the MGCC has been at it since 1930! So I geuss we should be pretty satisfied with where we have got to in just 8 years.
My main quandry is why we don't attract any more cars to our events compared to 2001, even though we have four times as many members. With just two cars entered for Beaulieu this weekend and no more than the usual number entered in the summer rally this year, this is a real puzzle. The summer rallies take an inordinate amount of effort to organize (I sent over two thousand e-mails out for the 2007 rally) and they are simply not worth the effort for a handful of cars, but then I certainly don't want to give up putting them on, as everyone seems to find them enjoyable on the day. The maths simply doesn't add up. Is it that all the early members were all those who enter rallies - surely not. And it is not as if all the more recent members are overseas members - the membership demographics are the same now as in 2001 as far as I can judge. Of course owners can do anything they like with their cars, and I would never suggest otherwise (other than in cases of wanton destruction), but I would have thought that the numbers attending our rallies, pub meets, etc. would NATURALLY have increased roughly in proportion with membership numbers.
It's been filed in the round filing cabinet on the floor! Apologies if my frustrations bubble over into the forum occasionally. Good points about Sevens having a head start, and I think the 750 MC and A7CA had a lot to do with it as well. And the MGCC has been at it since 1930! So I geuss we should be pretty satisfied with where we have got to in just 8 years.
My main quandry is why we don't attract any more cars to our events compared to 2001, even though we have four times as many members. With just two cars entered for Beaulieu this weekend and no more than the usual number entered in the summer rally this year, this is a real puzzle. The summer rallies take an inordinate amount of effort to organize (I sent over two thousand e-mails out for the 2007 rally) and they are simply not worth the effort for a handful of cars, but then I certainly don't want to give up putting them on, as everyone seems to find them enjoyable on the day. The maths simply doesn't add up. Is it that all the early members were all those who enter rallies - surely not. And it is not as if all the more recent members are overseas members - the membership demographics are the same now as in 2001 as far as I can judge. Of course owners can do anything they like with their cars, and I would never suggest otherwise (other than in cases of wanton destruction), but I would have thought that the numbers attending our rallies, pub meets, etc. would NATURALLY have increased roughly in proportion with membership numbers.
Re: M 131 Editorial
Ian,
I think you should be very proud with all YOU (and some others) have achieved in such a short time
Halbe
I think you should be very proud with all YOU (and some others) have achieved in such a short time
Halbe
Re: M 131 Editorial
I agree with Halbe. I know it is from a standpoint of attempting to recreate a Minor saloon out of a box of tin moth and woodworm dust and it is a daunting task. I am not the sort of person to give up a project but I recognise and appreciate the help, information and comradeship of the VMR. I have met Jeremy and Chris and if they are typical of our Membership theday of the VMR and the Minor will come.
Ian, your passion is admirable. Whether external acceptance of what the Minor is happens or not, those inside the VMR do recognise it. It would be nice to see more of our c ars on the road and I am sure that waving the flag in the right way and with the support of the regular Forum contributors we will see increasing numbers of Minors at events.
I am a bit of a "tea pot" budgeter and as well as my NG restoration pot I have started another pot to buy a roadworthy Minor when the right vehicle arrives at the same time as my new teapot is full to the necessary level and there may be others in my situation so your vision may come to pass.
May your oil pressure remain high and your blood pressure remain where it should be.
Cammy
Ian, your passion is admirable. Whether external acceptance of what the Minor is happens or not, those inside the VMR do recognise it. It would be nice to see more of our c ars on the road and I am sure that waving the flag in the right way and with the support of the regular Forum contributors we will see increasing numbers of Minors at events.
I am a bit of a "tea pot" budgeter and as well as my NG restoration pot I have started another pot to buy a roadworthy Minor when the right vehicle arrives at the same time as my new teapot is full to the necessary level and there may be others in my situation so your vision may come to pass.
May your oil pressure remain high and your blood pressure remain where it should be.
Cammy
-
David Whittle
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:08 am
- Location: Wantage, Oxon, UK
Re: M 131 Editorial
........................................................
Last edited by David Whittle on Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
OHC 1929 Tourer WE6554
Re: M 131 Editorial
I think location has a lot to do with owners not taking their cars to meetings. Our cars are fairly thin on the ground and the chances of there being loads of useable cars within reasonable distance of any given meeting must be pretty slim. If I drove my M type from Leeds to Beaulieu I would have to turn round and come back as soon as I got there! ( or even before I got there!)
Ian
Ian
Re: M 131 Editorial
I would far rather set high expectations and fall a little short than set low expectations and achieve them. If it hadn’t been for setting high expectations from the outset, then the VMR wouldn’t have achieved anything like what it has in such a short time. So the game plan stands. Anyone who wants to tune into my channel (and many have) will find all the support, enthusiasm and encouragement they can handle.
As for the VSCC, both the VSCC and the VMR share the same goals of encouraging their respective members to drive their cars – the only thing that divides us is WHICH cars! Don’t be shocked if there is a major sea change in VSCC eligibility criteria across the board in the not too distant future.
As for the VSCC, both the VSCC and the VMR share the same goals of encouraging their respective members to drive their cars – the only thing that divides us is WHICH cars! Don’t be shocked if there is a major sea change in VSCC eligibility criteria across the board in the not too distant future.
-
David Whittle
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:08 am
- Location: Wantage, Oxon, UK
Re: M 131 Editorial
........................................................
Last edited by David Whittle on Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
OHC 1929 Tourer WE6554
Re: M 131 Editorial
Into something rich and strange! I might be one of these – but its certainly NOT rich!
I can’t speak for every SV Minor owner, but looking briefly down the list of 51 currently in the Register, we have these probables for starters:
Brian Maeers – currently enters his two OHC Minors, but has two roadworthy SV cars as well which he currently enters in VMR events
Ted Widgery (Hereford Vintage Auctions) – longstanding VSCC member and forceful exponent of open eligibility - Hundred Pound 2-seater which he absolutely loves
Self – 1933 McEvoy – buff form application currently under review (for non-VSCC members, the buff form is your car's eligibility ticket to enter VSCC events)
Simon Hodgins – enters OHC saloon now, but also has 1933 Jensen (currently fitted with OHC engine!)
Jon Rose – currently enters his Morris Major spl. in VSCC trials, building a SV with his son Olly.
Chris Lambert – enters two OHC Minors now, but is also building up a SV in expectation of a rules change!
John Rogers – longstanding VSCC member with 2 SV Minors
The Hon. Richard Buxton – just joined the VMR and VSCC (as a DRIVING member!) with his 1933 SV – see April VSCC Newsletter
John Dixon – longstanding VSCC member with eligible Rolls Royce hearse (!) and much-traveled and much more VSCC-suitable but currently-ineligible SV Minor – has been waiting for years for it to become eligible
That’s eleven cars to get going with – not far short of the number of OHC Minors currently entered in VSCC events. These are just SV Minors already in the hands of VSCC members. Obviously, if SV's were to be come eligible, then at least some other owners would join and enter.
In any case, obviously someone thought it worth giving eligibility to the inferior thirties (SV) Sevens...
Agreed re LCES which I would also not want to see change, but both OHC and SV are equally suitable for main club driving tests, nav rallies, tours, etc.
I have not owned/driven a SV Minor for about 25 years, but my God, my old 2-seater was a hot little ship with an unburstable engine and a far superior 4-speed crash box. I'd have loved to have given it a good fling in driving tests and trials and I can't wait for the Mac to be ready as it should be even hotter!
I can’t speak for every SV Minor owner, but looking briefly down the list of 51 currently in the Register, we have these probables for starters:
Brian Maeers – currently enters his two OHC Minors, but has two roadworthy SV cars as well which he currently enters in VMR events
Ted Widgery (Hereford Vintage Auctions) – longstanding VSCC member and forceful exponent of open eligibility - Hundred Pound 2-seater which he absolutely loves
Self – 1933 McEvoy – buff form application currently under review (for non-VSCC members, the buff form is your car's eligibility ticket to enter VSCC events)
Simon Hodgins – enters OHC saloon now, but also has 1933 Jensen (currently fitted with OHC engine!)
Jon Rose – currently enters his Morris Major spl. in VSCC trials, building a SV with his son Olly.
Chris Lambert – enters two OHC Minors now, but is also building up a SV in expectation of a rules change!
John Rogers – longstanding VSCC member with 2 SV Minors
The Hon. Richard Buxton – just joined the VMR and VSCC (as a DRIVING member!) with his 1933 SV – see April VSCC Newsletter
John Dixon – longstanding VSCC member with eligible Rolls Royce hearse (!) and much-traveled and much more VSCC-suitable but currently-ineligible SV Minor – has been waiting for years for it to become eligible
That’s eleven cars to get going with – not far short of the number of OHC Minors currently entered in VSCC events. These are just SV Minors already in the hands of VSCC members. Obviously, if SV's were to be come eligible, then at least some other owners would join and enter.
In any case, obviously someone thought it worth giving eligibility to the inferior thirties (SV) Sevens...
Agreed re LCES which I would also not want to see change, but both OHC and SV are equally suitable for main club driving tests, nav rallies, tours, etc.
I have not owned/driven a SV Minor for about 25 years, but my God, my old 2-seater was a hot little ship with an unburstable engine and a far superior 4-speed crash box. I'd have loved to have given it a good fling in driving tests and trials and I can't wait for the Mac to be ready as it should be even hotter!
Re: M 131 Editorial
Ian, Have you ever compared Minor production figures with Austin figures and taking into account exports? I wondered if any conclusions could be drawn regarding survival rates in the UK.
Also have you read "The Life of Lord Nuffield" (1955). It has lots of interesting info plus good pictures including the man himself in the first £100 minor.
If anyone is interested there are currently 19 copies of this book on http://www.Abebooks.co.uk at various prices.
ATB
Clive
Also have you read "The Life of Lord Nuffield" (1955). It has lots of interesting info plus good pictures including the man himself in the first £100 minor.
If anyone is interested there are currently 19 copies of this book on http://www.Abebooks.co.uk at various prices.
ATB
Clive
Re: M 131 Editorial
Hi Clive,
A7 production was something around 291,000, from 1922/3 to 1939, so they were made before Minors and after Minors. The chrome radiator went out in 1934 when the Ruby type bodies came in, and it is all the pre-Ruby cars which are now VSCC eligible. They either had chrome or black enamel radiators (on the early cars). Also VSCC eligible are the sports models from the Ruby era (Ulster, Nippy, Speedy, 65, etc.) which retained the chrome radiator but were based on the lowered Ruby chassis. The VSCC has also given eligibility to specials based on the Ruby chassis, but I think they are tightening up in this area because one could take a perfectly good (and ineligible) Ruby, throw away the body, make a sports body of some arbitrary design and it would be eligible!
But your point was more to do with numbers, I think. I don't have much export data for the Sevens, but suffice it to say that Sevens far outnumbered Minors in the UK. Around 90,000 Minors were made, compared with the 290,000 Sevens, so Sevens outnumber the Minors just over three to one. But if you compare production numbers during the years of Minor production, the difference wasn't so great - about 30% more Sevens were made between 1928 and 1934 than Minors, so the competition between the two rivals was more even than is sometimes thought. And I believe that when the 8 came out in 1934, it outsold the Ruby Sevens and I also think that the Bullnose and Flatnose Morrises gave the Seven good competition prior to 1928.
But as Paul has alluded to, the Seven's almost unique place in motoring between 1923 and 1928 put it in a world of its own which was not seriously challenged when the Minor came along. It has a unique, anachronistic charm that is not overcome by the better engineering of its competitors. Old car enthusiasts warm to quirkiness and the Seven has this in large measure. They are also far cheaper to restore and maintain that the Minor, where we have to pay MG prices for our spares, and SV-specific spares (like camshafts and cranks) are simply unobtainable, which is why they were scrapped in disproportionately large numbers while the Sevens were able to soldier on.
So the equation is complex between to two makes. Production numbers would suggest that there should be about three times as many Sevens survived as Minors, but the ratio is far higher (unless there are barnfulls of Minors waiting to be unearthed!) which is at least partly why they turn out in their hundreds while we struggle to gather a baker's dozen. Other obvious reasons include the fact that Sevens have never gone out of fashion among motoring enthusiasts , while the Minor was all but forgotten for decades.
The whole topic is fascinating.
A7 production was something around 291,000, from 1922/3 to 1939, so they were made before Minors and after Minors. The chrome radiator went out in 1934 when the Ruby type bodies came in, and it is all the pre-Ruby cars which are now VSCC eligible. They either had chrome or black enamel radiators (on the early cars). Also VSCC eligible are the sports models from the Ruby era (Ulster, Nippy, Speedy, 65, etc.) which retained the chrome radiator but were based on the lowered Ruby chassis. The VSCC has also given eligibility to specials based on the Ruby chassis, but I think they are tightening up in this area because one could take a perfectly good (and ineligible) Ruby, throw away the body, make a sports body of some arbitrary design and it would be eligible!
But your point was more to do with numbers, I think. I don't have much export data for the Sevens, but suffice it to say that Sevens far outnumbered Minors in the UK. Around 90,000 Minors were made, compared with the 290,000 Sevens, so Sevens outnumber the Minors just over three to one. But if you compare production numbers during the years of Minor production, the difference wasn't so great - about 30% more Sevens were made between 1928 and 1934 than Minors, so the competition between the two rivals was more even than is sometimes thought. And I believe that when the 8 came out in 1934, it outsold the Ruby Sevens and I also think that the Bullnose and Flatnose Morrises gave the Seven good competition prior to 1928.
But as Paul has alluded to, the Seven's almost unique place in motoring between 1923 and 1928 put it in a world of its own which was not seriously challenged when the Minor came along. It has a unique, anachronistic charm that is not overcome by the better engineering of its competitors. Old car enthusiasts warm to quirkiness and the Seven has this in large measure. They are also far cheaper to restore and maintain that the Minor, where we have to pay MG prices for our spares, and SV-specific spares (like camshafts and cranks) are simply unobtainable, which is why they were scrapped in disproportionately large numbers while the Sevens were able to soldier on.
So the equation is complex between to two makes. Production numbers would suggest that there should be about three times as many Sevens survived as Minors, but the ratio is far higher (unless there are barnfulls of Minors waiting to be unearthed!) which is at least partly why they turn out in their hundreds while we struggle to gather a baker's dozen. Other obvious reasons include the fact that Sevens have never gone out of fashion among motoring enthusiasts , while the Minor was all but forgotten for decades.
The whole topic is fascinating.
Re: M 131 Editorial
I guess I could add that perhaps pat of the attraction of the Minor is its relative rarity. I know that many of our VSCC members bought Minors in recent times because they wanted something a little more exclusive that the Seven. Sevens have dominated many VSCC meets in recent years, particularly trials and the short wheelbase classes. In most trials they now outnumber all other entries combined. Interestingly, this effect is less pronounced in the Light Car Section where there is still a strong showing from rare and unique light cars, cycle cars and Edwardians, which results in wonderful variety and interest.
There will never be a perfect balance in the old car world simply because no two owners would agree on what that balance should be! The old car movement is what it is. Having said that, there are trends and fashions, and the Minor is enjoying a bit of a trend in recent years. I don't think that is entirely due to the VMR. There were one or two strong proponents of the car in the VSCC long before we came along.
Bottom line is that we should look up to the Seven fraternity and try to emulate them - not knock them! Sevens are FUN cars! I just don't see any rational reason why thirties Austins should be accepted into the VSCC as post-vintage thoroughbreds while thirties Morrises should not.
There will never be a perfect balance in the old car world simply because no two owners would agree on what that balance should be! The old car movement is what it is. Having said that, there are trends and fashions, and the Minor is enjoying a bit of a trend in recent years. I don't think that is entirely due to the VMR. There were one or two strong proponents of the car in the VSCC long before we came along.
Bottom line is that we should look up to the Seven fraternity and try to emulate them - not knock them! Sevens are FUN cars! I just don't see any rational reason why thirties Austins should be accepted into the VSCC as post-vintage thoroughbreds while thirties Morrises should not.