(28-11-2017, 11:39 PM)Ruairidh Dunford Wrote: There are lots of differences in the way the cars were built, some find these details interesting.
The more we discuss them, the more we learn.
Those not interested in the details should write about things they are interested in instead, surely? There is plenty of space for all of us here, without the need to shut down conversations.
I completely agree with you, Ruairidh.
This kind of discussion is very helpful to our specialist field of woodwork. We've studied minutely the frame details of dozens of "identical" cars and no two are exactly alike.
At this microscopic level, I don't believe that anything can conclusively be said to be right or wrong. It's quite evident that even in the late thirties very minor constructional details at Austin were not being micro-managed, but were instead left to individual tradespeople to sort out in their own ways.
29-11-2017, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 29-11-2017, 10:32 AM by JonE.)
What is interesting to me (thanks for all those contribs, all) is how far a lot of new owner 'restored' cars are unintentionally getting away from original. It matters not a jot of course, but originality is certainly something that will get harder to remember as time goes on, as we are distanced from original memory and object. The hood design changes over the years on the Nippy, for instance, seem to be largely down to business imperatives in the 50s and 60s... but now there are perhaps 1/3 of cars which actually look outwardly physically different from how Austin intended. That's before you get to the detail under the skin that Martin refers to above! It's just intriguing to understand the processes.
It would be interesting to compile a register of those few completely 'undisturbed' cars, like the brown '30 Tourer in Rinsey Mills (and so on) that we do have recourse to. Presumably the individual registrars probably know those cars.
The Gordon England Register Archive has a small collection of original 'items' - doors, hood frames, seats, catches, footplates, flitchplates, body framing and more.
I allow these to be loaned to people so they can observe the construction in detail, particularly useful when looking at the fabric covering and upholstery and the way it was applied/pinned etc.
Where multiple examples of something exist in this 'collection of items' differences of construction are very obvious and of interest - to me at least!
they don't look factory finish to me Tony, the binding would have come in large rolls of premade rexine bias, not cut out of short scraps of red. You can clearly see 2 joins within a yard on the tonneau cover, The trim off of the binding on the reverse is also a bit rough.Looks to me a later recover. cheers Russell
Interesting Tony, as far as I am aware Nippy's were not supplied new with tonneau covers, I must say I am with others in believing this may be old but not original. If you still have the rubber mats you may solve one of the enduring mysteries surrounding Nippy's; to date nobody has been able to provide an example of the floor coverings, therefore nobody has been able to replicate their appearance correctly when restoring a car. On behalf of all enthusiasts please, please, please will you try to fid them, even if in poor condition they will provide invaluable information, it may not matter to some but to others it is important these details are recorded before they are lost forever. So much good stuff has been happening within the movement in more recent years, personally I believe this forum has had a lot to do with increasing awareness.
Ian,
I don't have the mats for a Nippy, but my 65 had the tunnel rubber still in place when I bought it.
Regrettably it fell apart, but the detail is reasonably clear.
Smooth sided with a ribbed top section.
The second photo is of a tunnel cover I found on eBay, not sure which car it was from unfortunately, but the ribbing is the same - ridges 1/8" wide with 1/12" lows between.
As you say, to find some correct mats would be really good.
