On 23/04/2022 10:38, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:24:22 -0000 (UTC), nib
>>> <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:16:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilian market after the war or did they all wind up as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ferrous scrap for open-hearth furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public roads by the 1970?s I still used to see quite a lot AEC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crane vehicles in use in scrapyards forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the early 1960?s and also by that time British
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eased they were largely new bodies still using mechanicals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived from 1930?s production with performance rapidly being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> monocoque construction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the engine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe a "first" ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>>>>>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new
>>>>>>>>>> standard for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70
>>>>>>>>>> years later. Pretty amazing!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what
>>>>>>>>> other configuration might have superseded it (for family cars,
>>>>>>>>> anyway). A longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof,
>>>>>>>>> probably wouldn't have worked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>>>>>>>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit,
>>>>>>>> as happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle,
>>>>>>>> Fiat 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc.
>>>>>>>> One example remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were
>>>>>>>> succeeded by the new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The MGF is another example, the drivetrain of which was derived from
>>>>>>> the FWD models in the range at the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically, that's mid-engined (a popular layout for sports cars) ,
>>>>>> not rear-engined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've always thought that the precise position of engine block relative
>>>>> to axle is one bit of pedantry too far, unless you're discussing
>>>>> something for which it is actually relevant, eg finer technical details,
>>>>> or effects on handling. After all, it's very rarely mentioned for
>>>>> vehicles with the engine at the front! Relevant for this thread, the
>>>>> Minor had the engine mounted as far forward as possible (as IIRC did
>>>>> Audis of a certain generation), while the Mazda MX5 is described by
>>>>> Wikipedia as "front mid-engine”; but nobody routinely makes that
>>>>> differentiation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>
>>>> Indeed! The longitudinal engine+gearbox of an MX-5 extends behind the
>>>> front wheels much further than the MGF's does in front of the rear wheels.
>>>>
>>>> nib
>>>>
>>> Maybe a rough and ready determinant is whether or not you can rest
>>> your elbow (or your coffee) on the engine cover? If yes then it is
>>> mid-engined.
>>>
>>
>> You could do that with the J2 Minibus I bought for £30 in 1980 off a
>> defunct darts team which we used as a pub crawl mobile.
>> I never though it could mix in the same circles as sports cars.
>>
>>
>
> Cab-forward vans and forward-control LandRovers are about the only vehicles
> I can think of where this would even be possible!
>

One I remember from my schooldays was the old Bedford 3-tonner army lorry.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.