The main point I have trying to make throughout this ongoing discussion relates to the confusion which some of the information presented. The public, no do I, do not have the various pieces of data, such as engineering drawings, to confirm a particular feature or model.
I believe that any research which is based upon these paper records, eg engineering drawings, must be supported by further confirmation of "as built" thus taking away any confusion which may arise.
Much of the data produced "post mortem", particularly BMC Technical Bulletins and BMC Service Bulletins form part of an invaluable toolbox when completing the history of each model produced and can not be ignored. The ongoing discussions I have had, and hopefully will continue to have in the future with such ex BMC employees such as Service Engineers, has been invaluable in addressing some of the inconsistencies found.
The general public only see that product which appears at the Showroom and never witnesses the "to and for" at the design or engineering stage and thus information presented covering this stage of the vehicle is imperative.
It is time we all recognised that BMC/Leyland did not operate in a "perfect world", and as many of the factory records have been lost forever which could be used to confirm or deny these facts, that the both fields of research undertaken to date have a position, without criticism, in the history of the company and vehicles produced.

_________________
Enjoy your Mini
Regards
John Sneddon

I would disagree. There are far more opporuntities for making incorrect assumptions when working backwards from secondary sources compared to working forwards from the drawings. There are seldom, if not any, errors in the drawings and those which do arise are usually due to incorrect reading of the drawing or editorial mistakes. The drawings are tripled checked, revised via feedback from production and service, and prepared by qualified people. They have to be right to enable production to proceed. There isn't the same level of rigour in the preparation of secondary documents.

Any published work is open to criticism, but criticims need to be provided with examples. I would even accept your criticisms John if you care to provide actual examples of what is of concern to you.

While all the documentation adds to the picture, to my mind, the drawings are the ultimate arbiter, even if what is produced differs. When this happens, it is interesting, but to me, nothing more than that.

Tony Cripps

again, thank you very much for your input on this subject John and Tony - you both make very good points about which direction to take when looking for accuracy in the way our cars were made and what has ended up in our garages 50 years later. My personal thoughts are that you are both correct, but in different ways.

At this point I would like to suggest that we park this subject

_________________
did I tell you that I won a trophy?

Can I assume that the authenticity and credibility such documents as BMC Technical Bulletins and BMC Service Bulletins, which were prepared by others within the organisation and not by Engineering, must be questioned as such documents did not go through the rigours of drawing office protocol.
Many people, including yourself with in your books, have and will continue to use such documents as reference points for change.
I believe it is necessary to clarify this point.

_________________
Enjoy your Mini
Regards
John Sneddon

Parked...

_________________
did I tell you that I won a trophy?