Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Seddon Atkinson owned the other British sets of tools for a big cab, and they were not in the habit of letting a competitor use their bits, so that leaves a Ford-style foreign shopping trip.
That was the question which I raised did SA actually have exclusive rights to the outsourced MP supplied 400 type cab.If not badge engineered shared cab design wasn’t unknown among European manufacturers with the win win situation of the more users of it the greater the economies of scale and therefore more competitive the price. 
True. And even if rights excluded ERF, it would surely not have been beyond the whit of Motor Panels to produce a similar design to replace the 7MW. All sheer retro-speculation of course, as usual. Robert
robert1952:
… The Motor Panels ‘Transcontinental’ was based on the MP mark 5 cab. That would have been a logical progression…
Robert
Would ERF have wanted their flagship vehicle to look like a Foden?
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
… The Motor Panels ‘Transcontinental’ was based on the MP mark 5 cab. That would have been a logical progression…
Robert
Would ERF have wanted their flagship vehicle to look like a Foden?
I doubt it! See below. Robert
robert1952:
- You are right: page 9 of Patrick Dyer’s book on the SA 400/1 states that SA came up with the cab design (which was very well received at the '74 Amsterdam show).
Thanks for that bit of information.
That explains/clarifies it.I wasn’t aware of that essential point of detail.Which obviously seperates that specific design from what I thought was just the latest mark of MP cab design available to anyone who wanted to use it.
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
… The Motor Panels ‘Transcontinental’ was based on the MP mark 5 cab. That would have been a logical progression…
Robert
Would ERF have wanted their flagship vehicle to look like a Foden?
I doubt it! See below. Robert
0
I think you’re right- ERF would have been happy to use the same cab as Foden, with cosmetic details changed… or would they? The Motor Panels Mk5 Transcontinental was first shown to the public in 1972. Why did ERF not take that cab for its European adventure? Why did it go to the trouble of engineering a tilting version of the earlier Motor Panels cab? The Mk5 was a tilt cab as standard, was it not?
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
… The Motor Panels ‘Transcontinental’ was based on the MP mark 5 cab. That would have been a logical progression…
Robert
Would ERF have wanted their flagship vehicle to look like a Foden?
I doubt it! See below. Robert
0
I think you’re right- ERF would have been happy to use the same cab as Foden, with cosmetic details changed… or would they? The Motor Panels Mk5 Transcontinental was first shown to the public in 1972. Why did ERF not take that cab for its European adventure? Why did it go to the trouble of engineering a tilting version of the earlier Motor Panels cab? The Mk5 was a tilt cab as standard, was it not?
I think it was because the 7MW was already underway and only about three months from being released; and the MP Transcontinental was still very new and experimental - so much so that it didn’t enter production in that form. I also strongly suspect that they let Ford have the name for their new long-haul unit, perhaps for a consideration. Ford apparently showed an interest in the cab but opted for the French one in the end, but still used that MP name for its model.
Robert
It still seems unusual. ERF was a big Motor Panels customer, using their old cab in a market which demanded “new”. Motor Panels would have mentioned the Transcontinental cab to ERF the minute they considered doing it, you would have thought- I make that 1970 or '71. Maybe, as you say, the lead time to production cabs was too long for ERF. Maybe the older cab was available more cheaply, and ERF thought that their own updating of it would suffice- was the 7MW’s tilt mechanism engineered by ERF, or was it available from Motor Panels, to all comers?
[zb]
anorak:
It still seems unusual. ERF was a big Motor Panels customer, using their old cab in a market which demanded “new”. Motor Panels would have mentioned the Transcontinental cab to ERF the minute they considered doing it, you would have thought- I make that 1970 or '71. Maybe, as you say, the lead time to production cabs was too long for ERF. Maybe the older cab was available more cheaply, and ERF thought that their own updating of it would suffice- was the 7MW’s tilt mechanism engineered by ERF, or was it available from Motor Panels, to all comers?
The 7MW/NGC arrangement was very much a Jack Cooke design (chief engineer at ERF). The 7MW was the only tilting cab of that shape and was not available beyond ERF to my knowledge. In any case the tall version of the MP mark 4 cab had limited appeal to manufacturers: only ERF, Scammell and Mack (France) used it. Robert
@Robert, I guess you skipped the first user in 1967 being FTF-Floor according the CM-article from 1985:
"Although European operators were successfully using Volvo, Scania, MAN and other vehicles with 2.5 metre-wide cabs, UK hauliers were far from convinced of the need for a bigger, heavier cab. “They simply didn’t want one,” says Merrick Taylor. "When we introduced the Mk IV at the 1966 show, we were actually laughed out of court. They said, ‘You’ll never sell it.’ " Ironically, it was another European manufacturer, FTF Floor, which in 1967 was first to use the Mk IV. The small Dutch vehicle builder wanted to expand into the sleeper cab market but could not afford the high tooling costs of own-cab production. This established a link with Motor Panels that still exists today.
Next to use the Mk IV was Mack in 1968, Although the US truck builder had a 2.5 metre cab in the States it chose MP to supply cabs for its European models.
The first UK vehicle manufacturer to use the Mk IV was Scammell in 1969. Its Crusader tractive unit used both day and sleeper versions of it, Then came ERF in 1970 with its European 3/4 MW range, some of which filtered back into the UK. In the same year RABA, the Hungarian truck builders, used it."
ERF-Continental:
"Although European operators were successfully using Volvo, Scania, MAN and other vehicles with 2.5 metre-wide cabs, UK hauliers were far from convinced of the need for a bigger, heavier cab. “They simply didn’t want one,” says Merrick Taylor. "When we introduced the Mk IV at the 1966 show, we were actually laughed out of court. They said, ‘You’ll never sell it.’ " Ironically, it was another European manufacturer, FTF Floor, which in 1967 was first to use the Mk IV. The small Dutch vehicle builder wanted to expand into the sleeper cab market but could not afford the high tooling costs of own-cab production. This established a link with Motor Panels that still exists today.
More evidence of the UK manufacturers being held back by the backward demands of the domestic customer base.
ERF-Continental:
@Robert, I guess you skipped the first user in 1967 being FTF-Floor according the CM-article from 1985:
"Although European operators were successfully using Volvo, Scania, MAN and other vehicles with 2.5 metre-wide cabs, UK hauliers were far from convinced of the need for a bigger, heavier cab. “They simply didn’t want one,” says Merrick Taylor. "When we introduced the Mk IV at the 1966 show, we were actually laughed out of court. They said, ‘You’ll never sell it.’ " Ironically, it was another European manufacturer, FTF Floor, which in 1967 was first to use the Mk IV. The small Dutch vehicle builder wanted to expand into the sleeper cab market but could not afford the high tooling costs of own-cab production. This established a link with Motor Panels that still exists today.
Next to use the Mk IV was Mack in 1968, Although the US truck builder had a 2.5 metre cab in the States it chose MP to supply cabs for its European models.
The first UK vehicle manufacturer to use the Mk IV was Scammell in 1969. Its Crusader tractive unit used both day and sleeper versions of it, Then came ERF in 1970 with its European 3/4 MW range, some of which filtered back into the UK. In the same year RABA, the Hungarian truck builders, used it."
No, A-J, I didn’t skip this at all. Indeed, I read that CM piece very carefully before answering Anorak’s question and I could see it wasn’t in the least relevant. The FTF cab is the short version of the mark 4, along with the Raba and the other MWs.
If anyone wants to read the whole of that article, I posted it on the Motor Panels of Coventry (just!) thread ages ago. Here’s the link:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=112944&p=1978683&hilit=motor+panels#p1978683
Robert
[zb]
anorak:
It still seems unusual. ERF was a big Motor Panels customer, using their old cab in a market which demanded “new”. Motor Panels would have mentioned the Transcontinental cab to ERF the minute they considered doing it, you would have thought- I make that 1970 or '71. Maybe, as you say, the lead time to production cabs was too long for ERF. Maybe the older cab was available more cheaply, and ERF thought that their own updating of it would suffice- was the 7MW’s tilt mechanism engineered by ERF, or was it available from Motor Panels, to all comers?
You do have a point. This cutting (below) indicates that MP spend two years researching before building the prototype for the '72 show. Robert
The article does not say when the cab would have been available in production quantities. According to the CM archive, the Foden S90 launch was detailed in the 15th March 1974 issue, with the sleeper version of that model introduced in September of that year. Not much later than the NGC420, but who knows whether that arrived late to market, due to some problem or other?
I’ll stick to my earlier theory, I think- ERF wanted to design a tilt cab itself, so it did the 7MW. If there was a disaster with the tilt mechanism, it could be fixed on the SP, which would look sufficiently different to the earlier cab to minimise the damage to its sales. The 7MW would be there as a “reserve”, in case the EEC became sniffy about plastic panels. Developing both covered all eventualities. While that lot might make sense, is it as sensible as most of the other makers’ strategy, which was to develop the best cab they could, and put all their resources into that one job?
[zb]
anorak:
The article does not say when the cab would have been available in production quantities. According to the CM archive, the Foden S90 launch was detailed in the 15th March 1974 issue, with the sleeper version of that model introduced in September of that year. Not much later than the NGC420, but who knows whether that arrived late to market, due to some problem or other?
I’ll stick to my earlier theory, I think- ERF wanted to design a tilt cab itself, so it did the 7MW. If there was a disaster with the tilt mechanism, it could be fixed on the SP, which would look sufficiently different to the earlier cab to minimise the damage to its sales. The 7MW would be there as a “reserve”, in case the EEC became sniffy about plastic panels. Developing both covered all eventualities. While that lot might make sense, is it as sensible as most of the other makers’ strategy, which was to develop the best cab they could, and put all their resources into that one job?
Good analysis. At that time it probably was as good at it got on the cab front. All the drivers I’ve spoken to who drove them to the Middle East regarded them as the dog’s goolies. Robert
[zb]
anorak:
Page 131 | 20th September 1974 | The Commercial Motor Archive
A very good find indeed! Thanks for posting it. I didn’t know about this one. Cheers, Robert
And ‘Ronhawk’, on the Trans Arabia thread, brings more meaningful stuff to the table! I cannot resist replicating his today’s contributions on this thread, rejoicing in new material. Herewith, his pictures. Fantastic! Robert
The last superb post and pictures of Ronhawk did again remind me to the first details
on the NGC…with bulb Lucas indicators as well as the z-bend anti-slip profiles on the
tow bar, two (#105 to #110) of TransArabia had, as well as Van Steenbergen, Thibaut
and Groenenboom had. Quite an safety aspect not seen on the more recent ones?
