AC archives

[SJ351]

I managed to spend a few hours on Saturday looking throgh the AC Heritage archives and Steve Gray was, as usual, extremely accomodating to the point of my embarrassment. We discussed all of the model changes and relevant dates as they came up and it was interesting to examine some original factory drawings etc. It is amazing what is available and nice to know that it is still treasured and preseved as an authoratative source for future generations.
   
   Whilst flicking throgh the drawings, we again came across the MK111 designation on a factory drawing - a different one to the one I have seen before I think. We debated matters at length and I would love to know whether this was just a prototype pre-production drawing or whether AC used the MK111 term as a current model specific designation.

[rstainer]

There is no known authoritatiive evidence that AC ever used the MkIII designation for a current model. The leaf spring Cobra was referred to retrospectively as the MkI and the coil spring chassis (both 427 and 289 Sports) was called the MkII.
   
   Any authoritative contemporary evidence that AC made a MkIII in period wins the resurrected but unclaimed New Year competition: £100/€150 for Members, free one-year membership for non-members.
   
   Entries, please, to rstainer@radcothouse.co.uk
   
   RS

[B.P.Bird]

Stephen, Robin et all,
   I am sure we are all a bit jaded with this various Marks discussion. However, as we seem to be making complicated something which is simple, this is how it was in the years when Cobra production was in full swing at Thames Ditton:
   1) As Robin says and as is ever the case with Motor Manufacturers the term Mk. I (or Series I, or Phase One) is never used. It is for obvious sales reasons only applied retrospectively when a Mk. II appears.
   2) When Alan Turner completed the design of the front half of the Cobra chassis, still with leaf springs, but a revised suspension and rack and pinion steering every department bar one, at Thames Ditton, referred to that version as the Mk.II. The exception to this was the Sales Department. In fact a letter from Fred Larimore, the then Service Manager, has been reproduced on The Forum stating just that. Speculating on reasons for this stance by Jock Wright and Keith Judd in Sales is pointless, but might be to do with unsold stock of Mk.I cars ?
   3) In exactly the same way everyone except Sales moved on to describe the coil spring chassis as the Mk.III.
   4) Subsequent Mk. designations have continued this sequence - Mk.IV and so on.
   So from every stand point - design, production, service, users and management there were three chassis versions. These might have been called A,B and C or Series 1,2 and 3 but in fact it was Mark I,II and III. However the marketing situation, for whatever reason, became very messy between The Works engineering nomenclature and Thames Ditton Sales along with Shelby marketing. The use of engine capacity to designate models is confusing - all (but one?) 260 engined cars have cam and peg steering, some 289 engined cars have rack and pinion steering, but early 289s have cam and peg. In any event it seems clear that the cars were marketed as 260s, 289s or 427s in The U.S. and and Robin is entitled to claim that no Sales description Mk. III was used. Equally Stephen is correct in pointing out that the drawing office regarded the coil spring chassis as the Mk. III.
   As an aside and just to shew how it is best not to get too intense on this topic I have here the original submission to The Board at Thames Ditton from 'studio p. frua' for a car design which became the A.C. 428: It is titled 'Cobra Mark II'......

[rstainer]

Barrie,
   
   I can only rely on period evidence; after-the-event hearsay, in almost unlimited supply, isn’t period evidence. The Laremore letter isn’t period evidence either, being written more than five years after 427 production ceased.
   
   The period evidence is conclusive: the Factory Ledger ‘Cobra MkII’ coil-spring production heading, the CSX3101 ‘First roadster MkII with coil springs’ Ledger entry, AC advertising, contemporary magazine articles etc. There is not one iota of period evidence that AC made a MkIII in period.
   
   Any authoritative period evidence that AC did in fact make a MkIII in period wins the resurrected but unclaimed New Year competition: £100/€150 for Members, free one-year membership for non-members.
   
   I'm happy to spend money in the interests of MkIII research, but suspect it will continue to remain unclaimed.
   
   RS

[B.P.Bird]

Robin,
   Well as it happens I was there. So was Fred Larimore. The ledger was kept by the Sales Department so it would be surprising if they did not stick to their own nomenclature; just as the drawing office stuck to theirs.
   If you regard Sales as the pre-eminent part of Thames Ditton then you will adopt their policy, on the other hand one might decide to give more weight to the Drawing Office, Designers, Service Managers and Shop Floor. It matters little either way - whatever designation you adhere to there were three designs of chassis and everyone at Thames Ditton, bar Sales, used Mk. I, II and III in any dialogue.
   As I said on the 17th August '..... Robin is entitled to claim that no Sales description Mk. III was used. Equally Stephen is correct in pointing out that the drawing office regarded the coil spring chassis as the Mk. III.'

[rstainer]

Barrie,
   
   In addition to authoritative period evidence, the designations I use as Cobra registrar need to be unambiguous and useful worldwide, especially the United States (where the suggested MkI, II, III terminology is not used at all).
   
   At the very beginning of the 427 project, the US called the coil spring car the Cobra II. Shelby American Vice President James McLean changed this on 9 April 1965, writing to all employees that:
   
   The new series is to be called the ‘Shelby 427 Cobra’ or the ‘427 Cobra’. It is NOT to be called the ‘Cobra II.’ The Cobra II name is being reserved for future use. Let me reemphasise – both Street and Competition Cobras in the new series will be called the ‘427 Cobra’. Similarly, our previous series will continue to be referred to as the ‘289 Cobra’ and NOT the ‘Cobra I.’
   
   I believe we should recognise Shelby American as the impetus that turned the Ace into the Cobra and use SAAC terms rather than a uniquely English muddle. The SAAC Cobra Register’s clear, concise, universal and unarguable terminology is: leaf spring/coil spring; 260/289/427; worm & sector/rack and pinion. I commend its use.
   
   Finally Fred Laremore, please.
   
   RS

[B.P.Bird]

Robin,
   As you say, Laremore - apologies to Fred in the Great Service Department in The Sky. Whatever the large part played by Shelby and his team, in period, any ambiguity we are left with lies in trying to define three chassis types with two designations. Finally 'cam and peg' please.

[rstainer]

Barrie,
   
   No ambiguity whatsoever:
   

Leaf spring, worm & sector

Leaf spring, rack & pinion

Coil spring.

   This has never given rise to any confusion.
   
   RS