1907 Isle of Man TT Races: Correspondence
Note: This is a sub-section of 1907 Isle of Man TT Races
Correspondence that followed after the TT race and published across several issues of 'The Motor Cycle' and mostly a dispute of pedalling vs not pedalling.
[2613.]—I am continually having the question put to me, and have also seen it remarked in the Press, why I did not put up a higher average time for the complete course than the winning single-cylinder machine in the A.C.C. Tourist Trophy Race. In fairness to the Norton Manufacturing Co., and twin-cylinders in general, I should like to make known the reasons to your readers.
In eight laps I had ten stops!— namely, punctured front tyre, changed inner tube of same (time for this lap including stop was only 33m. 7.2s.), changed two plugs, came off at two corners, strapped and wired up mudguard which I broke on kerbstone, wired up advance spark lever which came adrift, dropped pump and had to return when travelling at top speed, and took up new belt twice. On one of my two non-stop laps I made fastest time of the day.
The winner of the single-cylinder class (C. R. Collier) rode magnificently, and had very good luck, making, I believe, absolutely non-stop runs, while I had the above stops, hence the difference in the average time for the complete course. H. REM FOWLER.
[2622.]—The first Motor Cycle T.T. Race is no doubt an entire success from a sporting point of view, and the best, or rather the strongest, man won.
I do not think, however, that full justice has been accorded to Marshall and Hulbert, second and third in the single-cylinder class. In all reports of the race no mention is made of the fact that Marshall rode a pedalless machine, and could not therefore assist his engine in any way during the race. The winner, Collier, however, pedalled hard round every corner and up every gradient, to help his engine to pick up and ease his petrol consumption.
It requires much greater skill to drive a machine without than with pedals, particularly round sharp comers. Should not pedalling be barred in such a race, as in hill-climbs, except for starting?
Both engines were 3.5 h.p. Query : What h.p. was Collier’s machine assisted by hard pedalling?
Collier’s petrol consumption was at the rate of 94.5 miles to the gallon with pedalling, Marshall’s at 114 miles without pedalling. Therefore, Marshall’s engine showed considerably greater efficiency.
Collier’s gear was 3.3 to 1; Marshall’s gear was 4 to 1.
In the second round Marshall had a serious fall, which knocked him nearly senseless, and by which he lost over two minutes.
In the third round Marshall had a puncture, which delayed him twelve minutes. Collier, on the other hand, was exceptionally fortunate in not having either a fall or punctures.
Collier’s time first five rounds 118m. l.4s.
Marshall’s time first five rounds 135m. 2s.
The time for the second five rounds (after the ten minutes interval) is: Collier, 130m. 6.8s.; Marshall, 123m. 45.4s.— nearly seven minutes less than Collier’s, on whom, no doubt, the hard pedalling was telling.
I do not wish to belittle Collier’s splendid performance, but I should like to see full justice done to Marshall’s ride, especially as it is his first race, and, as above stated, on a pedalless machine. M. J. SCHULTE.
[2623.]—I was very much surprised to see the claim of the Triumph Cycle Co. stating that their machine made fastest time in the Tourist Trophy Race, after deducting time lost repairing punctures. I think your readers will agree that this is rather an unsportsmanlike way of acknowledging defeat, and certainly not one worthy of a firm of repute.
In my opinion, and in that of all disinterested persons, the race was won on the merits of the machine and rider, and the ascribing of our victory to other causes is not at all sportsmanlike. H. A. COLLIER.
[2636.]—Whilst everyone will admit that Marshall’s performance was excellent, surely Collier’s was the best, more especially as the published weights of the machine show that he drove one 29 lbs. heavier than the other. If footrests are such a drawback, indeed even dangerous, on an intricate course, why were the Triumphs handicapped by such fitments, particularly as Mr. Schulte states that it calls for much greater skill to drive a machine without than with pedals round sharp corners? D 1617.
[2637.]—I notice that in your excellent report of the Tourist Trophy Race you state that Collier pedalled on the Glen Helen Hill. I am also told by eye witnesses that this machine was pedalled not only on the hills, but on the bends, and yet the Jap firm claim that their engine completed the race at an average speed of nearly forty miles per hour, climbing all hills with a gear of 3.125 to 1 without pedal assistance. This must surely be a mistake.
Would it not be desirable in the interests of the touring motor bicycle to have (as is done in the car Tourist Trophy) a top gear slow speed test and a starting test on a stiff gradient, and in this way abolish absurd gears on pedal-assisted machines?
I venture to suggest that the Tourist Trophy Race was never intended for pedal-assisted machines. The average amateur does not want such a machine, and the amateur is such the buyer! It is interesting to notice that Marshall (gear 4 to 1) with a plain Brown and Barlow carburetter averaged 114 miles to the gallon, while Collier with the same carburetter, fitted with the Gillet-Lehmann controller, only averaged ninety-four and a half miles to the gallon with a 3.125 to 1 gear and pedalling.
When one deducts the time lost by a fall and a puncture Marshall’s speed must have been at least equal to that of Collier. F. C. MUSTARD.
[2638.]—I note a letter from Mr. M. J. Schulte belittling Collier’s performance, which, I think, was admitted by most people to be a most meritorious one. If so much comment was raised on every winner in the various competitions the motor journals would require to be considerably enlarged. Although not knowing exactly the regulations of this race, I certainly do know that pedals were allowed, otherwise Mr. Collier would not have fitted same. I have not the slightest interest in either of the machines, but being an old motor cyclist I am still interested in races of this description, and watched the race in question from start to finish, and bar accidents (to use a sporting phrase) I consider it looked a good thing for Collier, and passed the remark to several of my friends even before the race started. G. F. HEATH.
P.S.—If every losing competitor in this and the motor car Tourist Trophy Races troubled the public with a lengthy account as to why he failed, I think the reading of their letters would be somewhat monotonous.
[2639.]—After reading letter 2622 in your last issue from Mr. M. J. Schulte, I must confess I feel almost ashamed to think I was the unfortunate winner of the Tourist Trophy Race. Still, at the same time, I think it grossly unfair to criticise my performance because the designer of the T.T. Triumphs made a mistake when he omitted to include pedals. I am sure, if he could have seen Hulbert at Peel—twelve miles—on the first round running by the side of his machine, he would have realised it fully. Mr. Schulte writes, “Both engines were 3.5 h.p.” He meant so-called 3.5 h.p., my J.A.P. being 85 bore by 76 stroke, while the Triumphs were 82 bore by 90 stroke, or at least a half h.p. more. Also the latter weighed with rider 285 lbs., while my combined weight was 315 lbs.
As to petrol consumption, I should like to know the reason he did not mention the rate, of the other “special” Triumph, which, if memory serves me right, only averaged ninety miles to the gallon at a speed of but thirty-five miles an hour. I can also assure him he is wrong in presuming that pedalling up Creg Willie’s Hill only, and then but to increase the speed, was telling on me. The reason I took longer over the second half was that, with seventeen minutes lead on any other make, and with a machine that was easily seven to eight miles an hour faster than any other single-cylinder of another make in the race, I thought it wise to nurse mv engine and to take no risks of running short of petrol, which decision I now regret. During the second half of the race I did not go all out, having obtained such a good lead.
In conclusion, I should like to point to the lap times published in the Automobile Club Journal, which, I take it, are correct. The time of Marshall’s last five rounds amounts to 125m. 15.4s., and not 123m. 45.4s., as he asserts. C. R. COLLIER.
[2648.]—I cannot understand Mr. Schulte, of the Triumph Cycle Co., saying that “he has no doubt the Motor Cycle Tourist Trophy is a success from a sporting point of view.” Let me tell him it is a success from every point of view, except his, because he did not win, also the strongest man did not win. It seems absurd to compare “Charley” Collier with the majority of the competitors, and say he is the strongest. I am afraid Mr. Schulte has his eyes shut with envy. How does he know that “Collier pedalled hard up every gradient and round every corner”? Was he sitting on the back mudguard?
I don’t know if Mr. Schulte is a practical everyday rider of the pedalless and pedal machines, but, from my experience, a machine without pedals is much easier, to get round a corner, and anyone who does know will endorse it.
I was just thinking of knocking a few minutes off Collier’s time, because he had done something or other, and telling Mr. Schulte that it beat his men’s time hollow, but it savours too much of the schoolboy who will not play because he lost.
Mr. Schulte had enough machines entered to compensate for any so-called bad luck, and win any race, without trying to whimper because someone else won — in fact, if he only looks at his own case, through different eyes, he will see that Collier’s was not luck, but real hard experience. Experience dearly bought, for did he not represent (and bear the expense) England several times in the international races?
It was in these that he gained the road experience so essential in a contest of high speed. It is to be remembered that this is not a mere twenty miles an hour London to Edinburgh run, and the breakages of exhaust valves, etc., of many machines competing, including Triumphs, only serve to bear it out.
As regards gear and pedals, it was left to the judgment of the rider what he had, and the results are the best to show who had the best judgment in everything, including getting round corners without knocking one’s self senseless for two minutes.
In conclusion, I must also remind Mr. Schulte that the winner has not a quarter of the resources his have, that no leading cycle company has ever represented England in the international races except one, when the frame broke in the trials preceding the race, and that I think “Charley” Collier’s performance an excellent one.
If Mr. Schulte would like to recoup some of his lost laurels, I will wager £5 on Collier in either a hill-climb or a speed trial on the track against whom he likes to put up.
Hoping that I have not taken up too much of your space, and that you will give this letter the same prominence as Mr. Schulte’s. EDWARD BARNFATHER.
[2649.]—Does not H. A. Collier, in his letter 2623 to The Motor Cycle, take too much upon himself? .
He begins by expressing his surprise at the Triumph Co.’s claim. On the face of it this seems ridiculous, there being no claim at all, but simply a statement of fact. He then goes on to say that his opinion is the same as that of all disinterested persons. Here, again, he is quite wrong. My humble opinion, as a disinterested person, is that the race was won on the merits of the rider together with the very best of good luck. As to the merits of the two machines, that is a matter of individual opinion. Mine does not coincide with Mr. H. A. Collier’s, but agrees with Mr. Schulte’s, that “Marshall’s engine showed considerably greater efficiency.”
Personally, I consider Marshall’s performance, taking everything into consideration, to be the finest in the single-cylinder class. Possibly this has occurred to H. A. Collier, and may account for his otherwise uncalled for letter! CHARLES E. H. BARNES.
[2650.]—We have read the various letters in your journal regarding the results of this race, and we think it is regrettable that the first race for this trophy should have resulted in correspondence of this kind, and we are surprised that Mr. Schulte should have entered into it instead of accepting the result of the race with a little more grace.
It was our intention not to have taken any part in the correspondence, but as Mr. F. C. Mustard makes some comment on the claims of the Jap firm, we feel compelled to write. We claimed that all hills were climbed without pedal assistance, and this the machine had done on numerous occasions, but it was not our intention to infer that pedalling did not take place during the race. We have ascertained from Mr. C. R. Collier that he could have climbed the Glen Helen Hill every time without pedal assistance. We should think it would be apparent to any average rider that the only time he could, in a race of this description, make use of his pedals would be on any steep gradients and in rounding any curves, as when going at any speed he could not pedal fast enough to keep up with the engine revolutions.
Re petrol consumption, this is not a point of merit, provided the rider got through on the amount of allowance. We would point out that Mr. Collier is in business and has not unlimited time for tuning up his machine, and, as a matter of fact, did not get his engine until three weeks before the actual date of the race, and we think it questionable as to whether the Gillett-Lehmann controller was of any benefit. We may mention that each time the Jap engine has competed in petrol consumption trials it has gained first place.
As for speed, one only need look at the time for the various laps to see that Collier had a considerably faster machine though a smaller engine.
By adding a few “ifs” we could enter further into the mass of correspondence, and picture even a different result of the race, more in favour of the Jap engine, but one must bear in mind that there can be only one first place and one second place in these events, and we should accept the results as sportsmen.
We ourselves were indeed pleased that the Triumphs gained second and third places, though we could have coveted second place, and we think their performance was an exceedingly good one, and we congratulate them on their various wins. JOHN A. PRESTWICH AND CO.
[2651.]-Referring to Mr. Schulte’s letter in your issue of June 12th, whilst admitting the Triumph to be an excellent machine, I believe the fact that it had no pedals rendered it less efficient than the Matchless. If Collier as Mr. Schulte suggests, derived an advantage in turning corners and climbing hills from having pedals fitted to the Matchless, surely the more efficient machine won, and the race has proved that the pedalless machine is not the best touring motor bicycle.
Probably Mr. Schulte will fit pedals next year, and the Triumph may win.
Pedalling not only assists in driving, but, inasmuch as the weight of the rider becomes a falling weight propelling the machine, the vehicle is relieved of the weight of the passenger. CYRUS SMITH.
[2652.]—I had the pleasure of witnessing the Tourist Trophy Race ridden and won in the Isle of Man and must say it was the best conducted road race I have seen — a good number of points ahead of the international races in which the Auto Cycle Club has been represented.
What appears to me to be very poor sport is the several letters of riders and their representatives explaining if (that’s the little word) they had not stopped nine or ten times, or done this or that, the result of the race would have been different.
I understand the Marquis St. Mars kindly gave the trophy with the idea of perfecting the touring motor bicycle, and if all these little things are going to happen to the several machines, it behoves the makers to perfect these weak points. This was the idea of the race.
I think great credit is due to Mr. C. R. Collier for making and riding a machine that can go through the race without any trouble. Not a matter of luck that he happened to win, as some of the firms seem to think. Mr. Schulte makes a point of his riders having pedalless machines. He should have studied that before the race, not after, when he has gained that extra experience.
Stanley Webb was mounted on a genuine touring machine and he had pedals. I did not know the Triumph Co. made machines for touring without pedals.
Mr. Schulte tells us that pedals won the race. He does not tell us how Hulbert and Marshall had to run beside their machines up Craig Willie Hill on several circuits. There is another point I would like to draw Mr. Schulte’s attention to as he has introduced the “if” query. Had H. A. Collier not broken his exhaust valve in the ninth circuit when he was holding second position to his brother, the Triumph rider would not have secured second place. I have not seen H. A. Collier explaining in the press why he did not manage to get second place, so thought I would mention it lest we forget. W. G. DARGIE.
[2653.]—As one who took great interest in your reports, etc., of the above race, I should like to raise a few questions concerning it. Why do H. Collier and Sons claim that C. R. Collier beat twenty-three machines of greater cylinder capacity? Surely this is not correct, as I notice there were three or four 3 h.p. machines, and these must have been at the least a little less than a 3.5 h.p. Also, there were a good sprinkling of 3.5 h.p. machines. Then again, C. R. Collier says his gear was 3.5 to 1. Mr. M. J. Schulte states in his letter on page 479 that Collier’s gear was 3.5 to 1 and Marshall’s 4 to 1, and your list of riders and machines on page 482 gives Collier’s gear 4 to 1 and Marshall’s at 4.5 to 1. Now all these things are very misleading to a good number of readers, and I want to ask if you could publish a list (if not too troublesome to compile), giving the following particulars, and then those readers who are interested, and also intending purchasers, could get a good idea as to what to select:
LIST: Rider. Ignition. Mount. Carburetter and make. Rated h.p. Transmission (if belt, the make). Cylinder capacity. Gear. Time. Tyres. Miles to gallon of petrol.
I do not think the above list would cause a lot of trouble for your staff to get out, and I am sure would give satisfaction to the majority.
Wishing your paper every success in the future, 0 2024.
[2678.]—As a practical motor cyclist, I beg to draw attention to some points in connection with the recent Tourist Trophy Race. The speed of the leaders exceeded forty miles per hour, or a mile in ninety seconds, and in your issue of the 12th ult. the gear ratios are stated to be 4 to 1 and 4.5 to 1. Allowing about five per cent, loss of drive for belt slipping — surely none too much — one finds that the engines must have worked continuously for some four hours at about 2,166 revolutions per minute on the 4 to 1 gear, and 2,436 on the 4.5 to 1. Of the latter engine the maker’s catalogue states that the normal speed is 1,500 revolutions per minute. What is the proper inference? It is necessary to mention that, while the tabular statement of details, which is presumed to be official, gives the gear of Collier’s machine as 4 to 1, advertisements and a letter describe it variously as 3.125, 3.3, and 3.5 to 1.
It is notable that rubber belts and spring frames are generally adopted, and that low frames (thirty inches from ground to top bar) are practically standard. This last is a detail that I have advocated and used from the first, and its recognition leads me to hope that a low-built 2.75 or 3 h.p. machine may find a place in the market. The great majority of riders are not to be trusted on a machine that covers a mile in a minute and a half, and do not want to bother with a machine weighing 150 to 180 pounds. Let us have a low spring frame, not too lengthy, with a moderate engine power, geared 6 to 1, the whole weighing 110 to 120 pounds, loaded, and the motor bicycle will become as popular as the pedal machine, and more useful. PILOT.
[2679.]—In reply to your correspondent, Mr. Barnes, I beg to state that the claim of the Triumph Cycle Co. that Marshall made fastest time in the Tourist Race after deducting time lost repairing punctures is, far from being a statement of fact, merely an entirely unsupported assertion of their own. One would imagine, from the positive way in which Mr. Barns put this down as a fact, that he stood beside Marshall with a stop-watch and timed him repairing his puncture.
As a matter of fact, the claim referred to above cannot be substantiated in the smallest decree, as Marshall’s average times per circuit, excluding the one in which he stopped, work out at 25m. 0.4s. His time on the third lap was 35m. 41.4s. - difference 10m. 41s., which equals time lost, supposedly, in repairing a puncture; but as I myself saw him stop on Craig Wyllie Hill on this round, probably half this time was lost in getting another start on the hill.
Now Marshall's official lap times, as published in R.A. Club's Journal, added, equals 4h. 20m., and brother’s 4h. 8m. 8.2s. Difference equals 12m. 39.2s. Therefore, had Marshall made a non-stop run he would have been beaten by 12m. 39.2s., less 10m. 41s., which equals 1m. 58s., even on my brother’s performance as it stands, and there is not the slightest doubt that he would have gone considerably faster in the second half had he been at all pressed. As regards the opinion of disinterested persons on the subject, 1 have not the pleasure of Mr. Barnes s acquaintance? but from the tone of his letter I should certainly not call him one.
The latter part of your correspondent’s letter I consider is in the worst of bad taste, but I can assure him that it has never been the policy of myself or my firm to bolster up failure in competition by assertions made through the press as to what our performances are worth, and we are quite content to allow the public to judge by officially published results, and not by mere bluff.
In conclusion, I should like to mention that the total distance that my brother used his pedals did not at the outside exceed 100 yards per circuit, as the extraordinary prominence given by Mr. Schulte and others to the fact that he did use them leaves the impression that he pedalled nearly all the way. H. A. COLLIER.
[2680.]—We notice in your last issue a letter from Messrs. Carburation, Ltd., with reference to the statement we made in regard to the Gillett-Lehmann controller fitted to the Collier machines. We wish to state that our letter was written before we saw the letter from Messrs. Collier with regard to same, and, as a matter of fact, we afterwards wrote to the Editor of The Motor Cycle asking him to withdraw that part of our letter which referred to this fitment, but our request was too late.
We have every confidence in Messrs. Collier Bros., and we are sure they would have got far better petrol consumption if they had had more time to devote to their machines before the race. We would point out to Mr. Lehmann, however, that the required mileage was not so easily obtained as he states, notwithstanding the controller was used, and it was on account of having to economise the petrol that the second part of the race was considerably slower the first half. As far as the scientific principle of the Gillett-Lehmann controller is concerned, we have perhaps a better knowledge of this than Mr. Lehmann gives us credit for, having conducted a series of experiments with this principle four years ago.
As we do not wish to open any discussion on this matter, we refrain from any further remarks. JOHN A. PRESTWICH AND CO.
[2700.]—I am very glad to see that you are protesting against pedalling as a feature in the Tourist Trophy Race. Few tourists want to get up hills by pedalling. If there be eccentric persons who do, they may be recommended to carry out their theory in that finest of all touring places — the Alps. I am sure Mr. Gilbert Spicer and others of your contributors who have favoured us with their experiences in this quarter will dissent very strongly from the view that the use of pedals is to enable tourists to get up hills. A Tourist Trophy Race forsooth! The name, as applied to the 1907 contest, is absurd.
The pedalling motor cyclist is a ridiculous object, and casts discredit on the picturesque side of our grand pastime. Personally, I regard pedals as encumbrances which are dangerous, and ought to be abolished. I have ridden pedal and pedalless machines of all sorts, and the superior stability of the footrest pedalless machine in taking corners at speed has always seemed to me so obvious as to be beyond dispute. I have just returned from a very fast run on tricky Swiss roads, and I should not care to take the curves in the way the 6 h.p. Bat took them were I fiddling with shifting pedals.
If pedalling is barred in future Tourist Trophy Races, the chance of a good two-speed gear emerging will be much greater. The rider could use a higher top gear and fall back on the other at a pinch.
By the way, I see that there are writers who urge that a powerful twin needs no two-speed gear. This sort of talk must emanate from fine weather butterflies whose range is restricted to the Brighton or Ripley Roads! I know a rider who has handled a 7 h.p. twin and found it perfectly useless as normally geared on the worst twisty Alpine ascents. (Not all passes are even stiff by the way, but the worst are terrible tests). I do not expect to be able to climb the Galibier, and I very much doubt whether I can tackle even Mont Caux. Yet the little 8 h.p. De Dion car does both without fail and consider what a weight this one-cylinder engine has to propel! The 6 h.p. twin has relatively little to carry. It should shine in such tests instead of at present — so far as I know — always coming to a halt. I am credibly informed that no twin has ever succeeded in getting up Mont Caux. This is a strange state of affairs indeed, and until it is remedied the motor bicycle must be considered a very imperfect turnout.
Rushes up Birdlip or Fernhurst are relatively easy tests. Corkscrew roads, which begin with 1 in 7, as the Galibier, and zigzag up (on the easier side) for 2,000ft., are the real “touring” tests. A bicycle which can tackle them would indeed be a treasure, especially if it had an adjustable pulley and a top gear which could secure you from the dust of large cars on the French roads in the plains below.
May I thank Mr. Van Hooydonk for his recent admirable articles in your columns on “tuning,” and on the magneto. It is hard to see what a tourist can find to admire in accumulators when the magneto is to be had for the asking. A more exquisite piece of mechanism than the Simms-Bosch magneto I do not wish to possess. Accumulators were the bane of my motor cycling existence in years gone by. The tourist who is dependent on “recharging” is not to be envied! A word, however, ought to be said in favour of dry batteries. Those on my De Dion cars used to run over 3 090 miles, and other drivers have still better records to show. They fire a fast running engine well. But here again, a caution must be entered. Good dry batteries are not to be obtained, except from special firms. And it seems a fact, as the case of a one-cylinder De Dion car makes clear to me, that the better power rendering is on the side of the magneto. If you study this question on a single-cylinder car, you will speedily find whether the power rendering is improved or not. The single-cylinder must be properly driven, and lends itself admirably to the purpose of such a test, the least gain or falling off in power being at once noticed. My informant noticed a marked improvement. It is not so easy to decide such a point when more cylinders than one are involved. E. D. FAWCETT.
[2710.]—I read your leading article “Next Year’s T.T. Race” with great interest, but cannot fall in with your views that pedal assistance is prejudicial to the development of an ideal touring motor cycle. I quite agree that one rider can give more assistance to the motor than another, but as the race was organised to ascertain what a modern motor cycle is capable of on a given quantity of fuel any assistance given by pedalling was no doubt thought of in framing the rules, and, as a practical motor cyclist of several years standing, I cannot see that much assistance (otherwise than starting or a few vigorous strokes of the pedals at a bad corner) could be given, considering that the winner, Mr. Collier, rode at the rate of thirty-eight and a half miles per hour for the whole distance. To my mind, it is much easier and more dignified to give a few smart strokes of the pedals than to jump off the machine and run alongside, and then risk a fall by vaulting on to a rapidly moving machine. Furthermore, there are a number of motor cyclists who cannot, either from physical infirmities or through lack of confidence, run alongside a motor, and, after it fires, get into the saddle.
I have sold hundreds of motor cycles in my time, but am not writing in the name of my firm to avoid any possibility of this being treated as a free advertisement, and I am confident that if I sold only machines that were not fitted with pedals the sales would decrease, as practically every beginner pedals his motor away in the manner he has been used to on a push bicycle.
I also note that the Triumphs ridden by Messrs. Hulbert and Marshall were not standard touring models as listed and sold by the Triumph Co. Although I am not endeavouring to belittle their performances in any way, I think, in a race of this sort, only standard models should be used. I am a great admirer of Triumph motor cycles, and consider them sound, serviceable mounts, but if the company suddenly decided to build only pedalless machines, I am confident that it would seriously affect their output.
I see that Mr. Geiger on a 3 h.p. N.S.U. 75 x 75 has done the best performance under the formula, and I consider his performance a very meritorious one indeed. To average thirty miles per hour over such a distance and a hilly course on what is now considered an underpowered machine shows that if manufacturers strove for efficiency in a moderate power, it would be better than adding power or another cylinder, as they seem to be doing at present. I am sorry to see two or more change-speed gears making so little headway, as, to my mind, they are a necessity if one is to use one’s machine daily, as it is not possible to keep a machine always up to concert pitch, and for street traffic a heavy powerful motor cycle, especially if no pedals are fitted, is useless unless a variable gear of some kind be used.
If more competitions were organised to bring out the merits of the variable gears on the market, and to encourage inventors and makers to bring out others, it would, to my mind, do more good to the sport and industry than speed ^contests of any kind, and if these fitments became practically standard, it would no doubt lessen the cost of them considerably.
You have an article on rushing hills, in which you state it would be better to slow down at the risk of having to assist the machine by pedalling than to rush hills with cross roads and in populous districts. If no pedals or variable gear is fitted, it is customary to get a high power and rush all the hills to avoid the possibility of a dismount and a heartbreaking push to the top, so, until variable gears are perfected and fitted, I would certainly advise all your readers to have pedals fitted, both for safety and efficiency. ROBSON CROSIER.
[Mr. Crosier has not grasped what we intended to convey, and which seems fairly clear to others, as we have only received his single dissentient reply. It is generally known that the Club limited the amount of petrol to keep the speed within limits, and not “to ascertain what a modern motor cycle is capable of on a given quantity of fuel.” Personally, we think pedals are most desirable for starting, but in a competition like the Tourist Trophy all pedalling on hills and elsewhere, after starting, should be barred, otherwise, what proof is it of the efficiency of the machine if the man is called in to help the motor?—ED.]
See Also
Sources of Information