Notes on Jaguar and TATA

more...

Greece to Grease

more...

New Directions for Auto Suppliers: A Radical Industry Reconfiguration?

more...

An A-Z report of the debuts and premieres at the Geneva Motor Show

more...

PORTRAIT OF A STRUGGLING INDUSTRY

more...

Delivered by George W Watson to the Institution of Automobile Engineers at the Royal Society of Arts, London WC2, on October 12, 1921, the year Marcus Jacobson was born…

IN the first place let me say how greatly I appreciate the honour which your Council has conferred upon me by electing me to the presidential chair. I think that the election to such a position in any Institution by a man's contemporaries is the greatest possible compliment which can be paid to him.
None the less, the standard of efficiency set by my immediate predecessor, Sir Henry Fowler, and the other past-presidents is so high that I doubt whether I am capable of maintaining it, but I assure you that during my year of office I shall do everything within my power to advance the interests of automobile engineering in general, and of this Institution in particular.

The work of the Institution during the past year under Sir Henry Fowler's guidance, viewed from almost any standpoint, has, to my mind, been more successful than ever before in spite of the prevailing difficulties. During that period we have seen the satisfactory completion of negotiations for a closer co-operation between this Institution, representing the technical side, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders, representing the commercial side of the Industry.

As a result of this co-operation, the field of our activities has been greatly extended, and I can see before me, during the session now commencing, very little spare time to spend either in the home wherein I am supposed to rest my weary bones or in the office where I am alleged to earn my daily bread. There is a strenuous time in store for your council and secretary, but knowing them as I do I am sure the necessary time and energy will be willingly given by them. It is my earnest hope that, as your nominal leader, I may acquit myself with credit.

We are all just now going through a most trying period in our history, and many are the suggested remedies for restoring business prosperity. Many of these are political, some social, and others-many others-merely " froth." I do not propose to discuss any of these contentious suggestions, but will confine my remarks to the consideration of a line of action which, if given our personal and collective effort, gives promise of affording a measure of relief to trade in general and to our Industry in particular.
I refer to standardisation, as may be carried out by the British Engineering Standards Association, in collaboration with this Institution, and every other Association, Body and Manufacturer with any interest whatever in automobiles. The Automobile Section of the BESA during the past year has been re-organised, and there are now good prospects of something tangible being done which should help to bring down the cost of production, both of details and completed machines, and once again put us on a more equal footing with other countries.

PAST DIFFICULTIES IN THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

British automobile Engineering has had a most interesting and varied career. We have had persecution, disappointments, phenomenal developments, and now stagnation, or something akin to it. Britons may always be proud of the fact that their forebears were among the earliest experimenters in mechanical locomotion on the highway, even if they bow their heads in shame at the memory of the acts of stupidity which crushed those early pioneers by requiring their machines to be preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag.

That act gave to other countries an advantage from which, to my mind, they did not profit to the extent which might have been expected. None the less, they went steadily ahead, and. French engineers particularly produced vehicles, the performance of which ultimately convinced our slow-moving legislators that they could no longer stem the tide of development.

Those of us who have been in the Industry continuously since its early days following the emancipation of the motor car can now recall with amusement our early experiences, but the fact remains that Great Britain; after a period of disastrous exploitation by financiers, quickly made headway, overhauled, and even surpassed the efforts of French, Italian and German engineers, until, just before the fateful year of 1914, our factories were producing the finest commercial vehicles in the world, whilst many of our passenger cars were likewise unequalled in other countries.

Except in a small measure, standardisation in our industry at that time may be said to have been non-existent. How different now might be the state of industry had we taken tip earlier this important aid to development! By the adoption of standards for many details which were of common application we should have been better prepared to meet any sudden demand for increased transport facilities without calling so largely upon the resources of other countries.

The danger of this lack of unification, particularly so far as concerned vehicles for military transport was recognised by many quite early, and with your permission I will quote extracts from an editorial article which was published in one of the motor papers in September, 1910. In that article we read:-

CHAOS IN MECHANICAL TRANSPORT

“Under war conditions, three-quarters of the existing state-owned mechanical transport would be a delusion and a handicap to any commander: each two or three units would need their own load of spares; no important parts are interchangeable throughout any division of wagons or tractors.
"What would be thought if this state of affairs held sway in the artillery? What if a gun-carriage or an ammunition wagon had to be abandoned because some little failure must involve long delay while a part was made and fitted on the march? What if it were the exception for any of the gun mountings and breech fittings to be standardised? Yet, in the growing arm of mechanical transport, at least so far, the necessities of the case have been sacrificed to short-sighted considerations which are wrongly supposed to reflect great financial acumen somewhere!

"A Standardisation Committee should be appointed, and this should be constituted of members of the Mechanical Transport Section of the ASC, RE officers, and accredited representatives of all motor manufacturers who are prepared to produce machines, suitable for military purposes, in accordance with the Army's requirements under an adequate subvention scheme.

“Although it would not be in the interests of trade that one type of engine, clutch, gear-box, final drive, etc, should be adopted for all internal combustion-engined machines, the individuality of the designer would not be smothered by the standardisation of many detail parts. In the case of vehicles which are propelled by internal combustion engines, the following are a few of the parts which might well be made to a standard specification, and, if so designed, they would be interchangeable for all makes of vehicles of the internal combustion-engined class of a given capacity: starting handle and spring; diameters of valves, valve springs, cotters, caps, etc; cam rollers and tappets; clutch (diameter of plates and number of keyways if of disk type, and diameter and angle of faces if of cone type); shape, size and disposition of the pedals; shape and size of radiator and bonnet; working positions of change-speed and brake levers; style and position of sprag, and means for indicating to the driver whether or no it is in working position; knuckle joints for steering gear, also knuckle joints for brake gear; brake shoes and drums; pitch, type and ratio of chains and chain wheels; diameters and widths of wheels and tyres; sizes of bearing springs and spring shackles; sizes of strap bolts for springs; hub caps; floating bushes for road wheels; type and position of draw bar; height of carburettor jet and size of screw thread in base of same; petrol and water strainers; petrol tank filling caps; and bolts.
“It might be possible to standardise the diameter of engine cylinders, and, if this were done, one size only would be needed, respectively for the big-end bushes, gudgeon pins and bushes, and piston rings. In the case of steam wagons and tractors, the same process of standardisation might be agreed upon.
"Were such a Standardisation Committee appointed, we are convinced that nothing but good could accrue to the Industry, as well as to the mechanical transport undertakings of the Army. The establishment of bases for repairs and renewals could then be placed on a businesslike footing."

AMERICA'S OPPORTUNITY

Shortly after the period to which I have referred a committee was called together, but the personal element was so strong that only a very meagre degree of standardisation was agreed upon (those items italicised in the above list), and even these were carried into effect by not more than half-a-dozen makers.

One result of this neglect to tackle the question seriously was that we were unable to meet the immense demand when the call was made, and the condition of partial impotence in which the year 1914 found us gave to Americans an advantage which, coupled with the large measure of standardisation they had already adopted, enabled their "component assemblers" to reap such a rich harvest. We are now paying the bill.

WHY WE SHOULD STANDARDISE

I have selected the subject of industrial standardisation for my address for three reasons:
Firstly, because, by the standardisation of parts we gain the advantage, through interchangeability, of securing to manufacturers uniform standards of materials and dimensions of parts which may commonly be used, and which, being adaptable to many makes and types of machines, may thus be produced in large quantities by specialists at prices which few individual makers could equal were they making similar parts for their own use only. The user benefits to an even greater extent because, once a standard has been adopted and made widely known, it is possible to buy it in almost every town in the country. Common examples of such standardisation are the size of screw threads found on gas burners and fittings, and the bayonet socket lamp-holders for electric lamp bulbs used in house and factory lighting; just think for one moment of the chaotic conditions which would exist among makers, distributors and users of such fittings were no such standards in existence.

Secondly, the enormous growth of the automobile industry in the United States of America during the past ten years is in a very large measure due to the adoption of a wide range of standards for materials and details, and even of complete units, with the result that there are now many powerful and successful organisations at work producing complete and interchangeable components.

As a direct result there are also a large number of companies which, relieved of the capital cost of installing special machinery for the production of some or all of the components they need, are able to produce completed cars from components purchased outside in numbers unequalled in this country, even in our largest factories. This collective effort and standardisation within the automobile industry of the United States is the real reason why such progress has been made over there, and it has enabled prices to be brought down to the point which puts all other countries out of competition.

The American home demand is, of course, very large, and possibly the percentage of exported cars compared with the number which is disposed of in the home market is not very great. This large home demand helps our American cousins to get down to rock bottom so far as costs of production are concerned, but I think it is the energetic manner in which the problems of standardisation have been tackled, coupled with the loyal co-operation of the automobile industry in the use of such standards, that has done more than anything else to bring about the phenomenal development of the motor industry of America.

Thirdly, there never was a period in the history of the British automobile industry when co-operation with a view to the re-establishment of trade, reduction in costs of production and maintenance, and the increase of efficiency, were more vitally necessary; for these reasons I feel that we ought to leave no avenue unexplored which gives any hope or promise of successful discovery. Hitherto, British industry has been more or less indifferent to the question of standardisation, and whilst most engineers recognise its benefits if carried out in the true spirit of co-operation, many directors have been, and still are, apathetic in the matter; they vote money for standardisation more in the spirit of charity donations than as matters of important business. If only they could be brought to realise that standardisation is not only possible, but that it is a business proposition and that its successful prosecution would mean increased dividends, the future of our Industry would be assured.

COMMUNITY INTERESTS

The principle of standardisation has existed since the time when exchange and barter were found to be too inconvenient for the development of commerce, a state of things which now again exists in Russia, with the difference that in that country almost every article now has a standard value relative to other articles. It is probable that the earliest standards were coins or tokens.

Since those days standards of weight and measurement have been established to meet the requirements of various trades and communities; and without them it would be impossible to conduct any business successfully.

It is the recognition of a community of interest by manufacturers in certain trades which enables us to purchase over the counter many articles for personal wear or use not to mention a thousand and one articles of general utility, at competitive prices. I refer to such articles as boots, gloves, safety razors, bicycles and their accessories, cycle tyres and similar articles.

Production in large quantities, with special plant, to agreed specifications for materials, dimensions and performance; is the only sure way of cutting down costs. Every standard, however, must be in accordance with the fundamental needs of an industry. and it must have so much to recommend it that neither producer nor user can afford to disregard it. The mere setting up of an intrinsically good standard is not sufficient; if the community interest has been ignored the labour of standardisation will have been in vain.

Industrial standardisation, or unification as it might more correctly be termed, signifies the interest of producer and consumer. The personal element, which so far in this country has proved to be the most serious obstacle to the establishment of standards, will assume less importance as the advantages of collective effort are recognised, and individuals will be ready to sink their differences of opinion in order to benefit the many, and, incidentally, themselves. This spirit has proved in the United States to have commercial advantages which were not at first apparent, but are now fully recognised by enterprising firms.

COSTS OF PLANNING FOR FRESH OUTPUT

Every manufacturer knows only too well the heavy outlay involved in preparing drawings, patterns, dies, jigs and fixtures for the production of a machine, or part, to a specification which may differ only in non-essential details from another specification to which he may be working for another customer. This outlay, of course, has to be borne by the customer.

Examples of these needless differences may be found in every factory where specialised articles are made, as, for instance, pistons, piston rings, spring-shackle pins, etc It is such details as these which most urgently call for the adoption of standardisation, The requirements of the Industry must be unified without hampering invention or destroying the individuality of the designer. Any standard should embody the combined experience of an industry so that it represents the best average practice; it can then safely be used as a purchasing specification.

Some men argue that nothing should be standardised until we know everything about the subject, whilst others hold that, from the first, an industry should have provisional standards which may be revised periodically so that they do not limit progress. I think the former line of thought is to be condemned; as there are some things on which our knowledge may always remain incomplete, but that is no excuse for our continuing to interpret in a dozen or more ways such knowledge as we do possess.
Let us get together and see each other's viewpoints, then make the best of our present experience and revise the results as progress and requirements dictate. That is the policy of the British Engineering Standards Association. They do not initiate standards, but undertake the investigation of any subject at the request of an industry. Before commencing work on any one subject, they call a representative conference of all concerned in order to make sure that there is a consensus of opinion in favour of such work being carried out.

The BESA have no power to enforce any standard, but given the goodwill and co-operation of the automobile industry, I am sure that the past and future work of its many sub-committees and panels can only tend to the advancement of the automobile industry in this country, as the work of the Society of Automotive Engineers has done in America.

It has been said that the S.A.E. has been too hasty in arriving at many of its standards, and whilst it must be admitted that very many and frequent revisions are made by them, I suggest that this only shows the elasticity of the system of tentative .standards. They show the average requirements at any particular period, so that makers of components and accessories and suppliers of materials are enabled to quote on an equitable basis.

FAILURES IN STANDARDISATION

There have been notable failures in both British and American standards, but those failures have been largely due to a lack of initial co-operation, abstention from participation in their framing by those whose experience would have been most valuable, or to the absence of experience. Possibly the, outstanding British failure is that of the standard established many years ago regarding limit gauges, in which the shaft was taken as a basis.

Viewed from this standpoint, the standard may have been a good one for some trades, but I think it will be admitted that for the majority of engineering work, and for automobile engineering in particular, the shaft basis was a wrong one, and the fact that those early standards were almost entirely ignored goes to show that the community interest had not been sufficiently studied.

As a result the whole question of limit gauges has, since been reconsidered, and although it is generally agreed that the "hole" basis should be accepted, no final decision has yet been reached on the matter of tolerances. So far as the American automobile industry is concerned, a striking failure is that of the standard specification for military trucks evolved by the USA government officials during the early period of the war. It has been admitted by a prominent American that in the light of subsequent experience some of these specifications were ill-advised, but it must be remembered that at the time of their formulation their knowledge regarding military transport was very much smaller than it is now.
The only personal experience which they had to work upon was that gained on the Mexican border, where the conditions were entirely different from those which prevailed on the Western Front. It was later found that some of the fundamental principles of those specifications were based upon incorrect premises, and when the United States ultimately decided to participate in the general European hostilities they found their army in possession of some 2,400 trucks of entirely unsuitable design and construction, and they then had to call upon the big manufacturers to re-organise the whole system of transport.

Had that early American standard been drawn up by men of wider experience, or had they profited by the experience of other countries, it is reasonable to suppose that, with their natural aptitude for standardisation, their vehicles would have been wonderful examples of military transport efficiency.
Attempts to right matters were made during the year 1917, when proposals were put forward for the standardisation of complete new designs by the War Department, and although strong opposition to this was put forward engineers were invited to Washington and the designs commenced. From the first they were handicapped by, among other things, lack of competent direction and organisation. The result was the production of certain models, only one type of which, I believe, ever found its way to France, where it was received with a considerable amount of indifference by the American Expeditionary Force.

The mistake had been made of trying to force on to the industry a design which it had not produced,, without due regard to those who were to use them, and in the production of which design it is only fair to say that the Society of Automotive Engineers of America was not in accord, its policy having previously been to standardise items such as brackets, connecting flanges, frames, etc, with the object of securing interchangeability of units only, rather than to standardise complete machines.
Notwithstanding the extent to which standardisation had progressed in the States, it is interesting to note that the Transport Corps of the American Expeditionary Force was required to keep no fewer than 57,000 non-interchangeable parts in stock, besides 13,000 sizes of bolts, nuts and screws; a formidable total, but infinitesimal in comparison with the conditions which existed in our own Mechanical Transport Department.

WHAT SHOULD WE STANDARDISE?

It might be well for us to consider for a moment what we mean by industrial standardisation. Do we mean the boiling down into one specification and design for each complete car or lorry of any given load capacity, or, what almost amounts to the same thing the standardisation of complete units from which assemblers may turn out finished vehicles? Or does it mean the careful examination and standardisation of details and materials which have common functions to perform, no matter what type of vehicle is under consideration?

The former would almost amount to the production of one type of car or lorry only, and would practically mean the standardisation of the Industry's output rather than the standardisation of the materials used by the Industry. It would put a scotch on progress and bring an end to that much maligned individual - the designer. I have known heads of concerns who would welcome the abolition of new designs on the alleged ground that all factory expenses have their origin in the drawing office; those are the men who will rush the technical staff into production before a design has been thoroughly digested. They will not recognise that alterations can be made on paper at much less cost than in wood or metal.

Does the British automobile industry desire standardisation to be carried so far that all motor vehicles, no matter in what factory they are erected, resemble the continuous products of a sausage machine so far as their similarity to each other is concerned? I, personally, do not think so. The vehicle of individual design will always find a market, and the truth of this may be found on the boulevards of Paris or in Fifth Avenue, where there will always be found an appreciable percentage of distinctive British-built cars occupied by discriminating users. We have the choice of “assembling," as the Americans do, and commencing a hopeless struggle to compete with them, or of being satisfied to continue to build vehicles which have an individual touch which appeals to a limited market.

Probably we shall do best to take the latter course, but even so we cannot hope to succeed unless we apply modern methods of production. We may not be able to build vehicles in such large numbers as to enable us to compete in every market, but we can produce many commonly applicable details in large enough numbers to ensure getting down to rock bottom costs for a large number of details. This can only be effected if we agree amongst each other, firstly, what may be included in those "commonly applicable" details, and, secondly, decide upon their design, materials, dimensions and limits.
A certain number of useful standards were completed before 1914, including the British Standard fine thread, whilst other useful standards have been evolved during the past six years, including the most valuable efforts of the Steels Committee, and the resulting standards for wrought steels. The sizes of magnetos, and many others of especial interest to the industry have also been dealt with. Much remains to be done, however, and it can only be carried out with the goodwill and united efforts of all who have any interest in the Industry.

FUTURE STANDARDS

Among the first standards on which we require a decision is that of limit gauges. This affects all classes of engineering, and it does strike me as remarkable that, after several years of discussion, the committee dealing with this question does not yet feel equal to the responsibility of declaring what should be the size of a one-inch hole. May it be smaller or larger than the nominal size; or may the tolerance be only above or only below the nominal?

The problem, easy enough on paper, is really a very serious one., and its effect varies in different industries. An alternative svstem, which is really a combination of both unilateral and bilateral systems, has recently been proposed, and if an agreement can be arrived at by the contesting parties it will pave the way. for many other standards, as they all, more or less, call for the determination of limits and tolerances.

This vexed question, which our industries alone can decide, as obviously the BESA cannot impose any standards upon industry, is the biggest problem we have before us, and it must be done before any new standards can be presented in a form likely to remain unaltered for any considerable period. Tentative standards, however, can be adopted, and there are now before the various sub-committees suggestions for several such standards.

These include a number of small fittings, such as petrol filters, petrol cocks, drain cocks, grease caps, ball and socket joint ends for control rods and lamp brackets, designs of which have been most carefully considered by the Association of British Motor Manufacturers, a committee of which body has put them forward for acceptance by the BESA.

The whole range of automobile standards is being considered by seven sub-committees of the Automobile Section of the BESA, and if these are all dealt with in the true spirit of co-operation they are bound to have a beneficial effect upon the Industry. It is to be hoped that the work of these sub-committees, the constitution of which embodies representatives of this Institution, of the Association of British Motor Manufacturers, of the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders, of the War Office, and of other government departments, and of various users' associations, will not be hampered by attempts to impose personal opinions as distinct from collective experience.

I am a member of several of those sub-committees, and I feel that unless each member speaks as the mouthpiece of the organisation he represents, instead of confining his remarks to an expression of his personal views, progress will be slow and any resulting standards will be in danger of being disregarded by the Industry.

The essentials to successful standardisation are, first, a full appreciation of the value and influence which standards can have on the development of an industry, and, secondly, the existence, or the creation, of the true community spirit to attain the ideal, or, failing that, the best workable average for any particular subject. The first of these essentials was given important recognition at a recent meeting of the International Chamber of Commerce held in London, where the members agreed to use their influence to propagate the idea. and value of industrial standardisation throughout the business world at large.

STANDARDISATION OF AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS

Up to the present my remarks on the standardisation of materials and parts have applied more particularly to such automobiles as passenger cars, motor cycles, omnibuses, and various kinds of commercial vehicles, but there is another class of machine a consideration of which the automobile engineer should seriously take in hand without further delay. I refer to the agricultural tractor.
In the realm of agriculture, I believe, we are in very much the same position which in the automobile industry we held during the years 1904 to 1907; that is to say, we are just emerging from the experimental stage, and I am convinced that if this branch of the Industry is handled intelligently it will prove to be one of the most useful and profitable ones. The application of motor power to farming has, up to the present, only been admitted on a very small scale, notwithstanding the fact that agriculture may truthfully be termed the basic industry.

Viewed in that light, it does seem strange that it should have been carried on for so many years with such primitive implements. America has done more with regard to the use of machinery on farms than any other country, and the number of American-built tractors is very great; none the less, to reverse an old quotation, no American tractor is really good, but some of them are worse than others. Several manufacturers in this country are now interested in power farming, and some of them are producing machines which, whilst by no means ideal, give promise of very successful development, and this Institution ought to do everything in its power to encourage this development.

I feel no little satisfaction in the knowledge that during my year of office at least two papers on this subject will be read before you, and the discussion which follows them will, I hope, be productive of suggestions which will advance this important branch of the Industry. Standardisation can do much towards this, and I suggest that now is the time for those who are interested in the matter to try and arrive at an agreement for standardisation of such parts as cleats, clevices, spud attachments, belt speeds, height of draw-bar, type of draw-bar connection, method of control, carburettor flanges, air filters, and a host of other matters which would readily suggest themselves to any committee which set to work to consider the matter.

The necessity for standardisation will readily be appreciated when I point out that the belt speeds on the tractors which participated in last year's trials at Lincoln varied from 1,830 ft per minute to 3,760 ft per minute, and in only three of them was the belt speed anywhere near correct with the engine running at its normal speed.

As one of the principal things for which belt power is required on a farm is the driving of a thrashing machine, it might be expected that the designers, in the first place, would old ascertained if any standard had been arrived at among builders of such machines, and although, so far as I am aware, there has never been any conference on the subject. I am informed by Sir William Tritton that all British steam traction engines, portable engines, etc are arranged to drive at a belt speed of 2,200 ft. per minute, and that this is equally true of German, Austrian, American and Canadian engines, with the result that any make of engine could run with any make of thrashing machine. Moreover, all other types of machinery for use on farms and by contractors, such as saw benches, mortar mills and grinding mills, conform to these figures.

In the face of this agreement among builders of agricultural steam engines and machinery, it is difficult to understand how the newly developed internal combustion tractor has come into being without any consideration being given by designers to this important point. This criticism applies both to British and foreign-built agricultural tractors, and the difference among various makers is more pronounced in American-built tractors than in those of any other country.

This coming field for development is well worth cultivating. The agricultural community all the world over has always shown marked preference for British-built traction and portable engines on the one hand, and gas and oil engines on the other, and it is not too much to hope that if designed and built on the same sound lines the British builder of agricultural tractors would achieve an equal measure of success.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

This brings us to a consideration of international standards, and in this connection it is interesting to note that standards committees are now at work in no fewer than thirteen different countries, and that the BESA is in close touch with them all. Recently an unofficial conference of all the secretaries of these organisations took place in London, which should do much to promote interchange between these bodies and assist in the important work.

International standardisation is by no means a simple problem. There are immense difficulties in the way, and it can only go forward with the greatest caution and with adequate safeguards to British industry. Each country must protect its own trade requirements. It is well to recognise that our manufacturers may soon find that they are being asked to quote for foreign specifications, and for that reason every possible support should be given to the BESA in their efforts to bring the specifications of all countries into harmony. Such a step can only be to the advantage of our export trade.

STANDARDISATION IN GERMANY

In connection with international standardisation, we ought to bear in mind that not more than three years ago a standards committee of the German industry was formed, and after less than two years' work it had published no fewer than IGO standard sheets and had over 400 more in progress. It is also interesting to note that the attitude of the German standards committee appears to be the standardisation of manufacture rather than that of materials, the idea being the simplification of design so as to save both labour and material.

Standards which they have already issued cover a very large field, including tools, gauges, automobiles, agricultural machinery, locomotives, window frames, doors, stairs, roofing, and a vast amount of other work which is undoubtedly assisting that country more than any other in the process of reconstruction. Technical development east of the Rhine needs to be most closely watched during the next ten years.

We should not forget that it was the co-operation of German engineers and capitalists during the thirty years following the Franco-Prussian War which raised them from an agricultural to a commercial nation; neither should we forget that the patience, genius and perseverance which created that change in the economic position of Germany is still alive.

Before concluding, I should just like to acknowledge the great work done in connection with one branch of standardisation which has been undertaken by one of our members - Mr Woollan. I refer, of course, to his work in connection with the standardisation of tyres and rims.

VOTE OF THANKS

Brig-Gen. R BAGNALL-WILD: I have been asked to propose a very hearty vote of thanks to our president for the most able address he has given us to-night. He has given us a great deal of food for thought. I think our president has as much knowledge as any man in England of all vehicles, both of British and foreign manufacture, during construction, in use, and under repair. From the latter he knows whether parts are interchangeable and the value of being able to use spare parts without a lot of hand fitting.
The president made a number of references to the BESA, and I do not think some of us know what it really is. It has only just got properly started on automobile work, though it has done a great deal of work on aircraft, and that work I judge by the results. A great deal has been said with regard to BESA specifications forcing something on to the trade, and giving the trade something it does not want, but that is not the case, and the Trade does not at all mind manufacturing to them. I am very glad that the president has so strongly emphasised that point in his address. I will ask you all to join me in according a very hearty vote of thanks to him, and to give him our best wishes for a happy year.

THIS address was retrieved from among bound volumes of the Institution of Automobile Engineers proceedings held by Motor Industry Archives Ltd. Anne Hope, whose first newspaper work was in the Daily Telegraph library in Fleet Street, established the enterprise when she left the Sun in 1969. MIA has since grown into a prodigious collection of words and pictures relating to all matters automotive. It embraces an actively maintained library of newspaper clippings, as well as magazines, books, photographs and news releases. There are also TV clips, films and radio recordings of motor sport, racing and rallying. The ‘paper’ archives have expanded to fill 90 filing cabinets, augmented by more modern media such as floppy disks, CDs and DVDs. A significant proportion of this information has been generously handed over by living friends and by the widows of former colleagues. So MIA holds material from, among others, the collections of Dr William Edwards Deming, Peter Garnier, Brian Groves, Anthony Howard, Josie Northey, the Lord Strathcarron, Brian Rimmer, Peter Roberts, Robin Wager, and Hildegard, Deborah and George Young. Indeed MIA has proved to be an invaluable resource for those of us involved with Vehicle Engineer.