The immediate postwar years were not exactly some of England’s best, car-design or otherwise. While still deeply rooted in the classic era, many new post-war models tried to incorporate more modern design. Among the more unfortunate was the Triumph 1800 Roadster, referred to as “Toadster” by at least one observer. Despite its odd proportions, it does have one rather curious feature: a “dickey seat”, essentially a rumble seat with its own windscreen.
This Triumph was shot by CC Cohort poster CJCars. In this view, we can already see something unusual–sort of the opposite of the cargo privacy screen on hatchbacks and wagons.
I found this shot of the dickey seat in action at Wikipedia. The trunk lid flips back, and the little paned panel flips up. Obviously, getting in and out of the dickey seat was less than easy. But here is undoubtedly one of the world’s smallest dual-cowl phaetons.
Here’s the front view showing its very traditional face, whose front fenders alone far exceed a desirable thickness. It looks all plumped up. Although the 1800 Roadster was not a success, it led to the coming of Triumph’s big breakthrough roadster, the TR-2.
A very unique automobile, with the paned “dickey” seat. I think it’s quite attractive. I wouldn’t throw it out of my garage.
Are the vertical things behind the door openings semaphores? I could tell this was a British car when I first saw it, but other than that I didn’t have a clue. I also guessed it was about ten years older than it turned out to be. The glass windows in the decklid really piqued my curiosity, especially when I could see folded bucket seats under them. The front seat accomodations actually seemed less inviting. There is a small bench seat and footwell combined with a HUGE steering wheel. One would have to be quite thin to not be in intimate contact with the wheel at all times. Originally, this car would have had a column shifter for its four-speed, but this car had been fitted with a Hurst floor shift, which was well done but anachronistic looking.
Yes, they’re “Trafficator” semaphore turn signals. Here’s what they look like open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/argentla/6650817771/
Those are individual seats, but calling them “buckets” is perhaps stretching the point:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/argentla/6650814079/in/set-72157627300717795/
This was one of the first postwar Triumphs, after the name had been purchased by Standard. It shares its tubular steel chassis with the razor-edge 1800 Saloon (later called Renown), of which the unfortunate Mayfair was sort of a bonsai version. The roadster’s body, styled by Walter Belgrove, is a wood/metal composite, which was already old hat by 1946, but less of a problem in production terms, since sheet steel was still restricted in the U.K. The engine, gearbox, and axle were all Standard stuff.
The engine, incidentally, a 1,776 cc four from the Standard Vanguard, was also used by Jaguar in this era, for the 1½-Litre saloons.
As TheCollector pointed out earlier, did you mean Mayfair or Mayflower? (CC article here.)
Strange little cars and rare as now but not really sought after they shoulda left it as a 2 seater.
These are better known than you’d think round the British Empire. Far more so than their tiny production numbers and general lack of success would seem to justify. But a popular BBC TV show Bergerac (set on Jersey) ran from ’81 to ’91 approx. and the eponymous detective drove one of these. http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/images/2006/04/11/bergerac_s9_gallery_470x350.jpg
Mayflower? Mayfair a superior version of Playboy ;o)
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_146088-Packard-One-Eighty-1906-1941.html
Looks like Banack’s car got left out in the rain. Let’s see him solve this mystery,
instead of simply disappearing, his car suddenly became 5/8 scale.
What was wrong with post-war British car design? Amidst the ruin that was Britain, I think car design was one of the things they did quite well. Morris Minor (agreed the design originated earlier), the elegant ponton Oxfords and Rover P4, Jaguar XK120, RR/Bentley Continental Mulliner coupes, and so on and so forth, culminating in the Mini. Yes, British cars tended to be small, but that was due to the poverty and high taxation in the country. Sort of similar to the Kei-car ecosystem in Japan. I don’t see anyone laughing at Japanese micro-Pajeros. Also, razor-edge styling is actually quite good when applied to a large-enough car—considerably more elegant and formal-looking than a fake `landau brougham’. As for the wood-steel hybrid body, what else could be done for a low volume roadster in times of steel rationing? And *everyone* was using warmed-over prewar designs in ’46-’49. Just ask Chevrolet.
Looking at the car now, it could almost be a highly customised, chopped, channeled, sectioned and shortened version of a larger car, with the large fenders left intact.
The 1800 Roadster was a cool car. Very low, with a long bonnet (hood) so it ticked all the boxes. Plus a dicky seat for your mother-in law. What more could you ask ?
Most post-war British “sports” cars were doomed to relative failure as soon as the XK120 appeared.