Last but not least in our survey of sports cars and American GT cars from 1956-1957 via reviews from Sports Car Illustrated is the Triumph TR-3. The TR series of sports cars, starting with the TR-2 in 1953, had quickly established itself as being the fastest affordable sports car, with a roarty 2 liter four that could push the TR-3 to sixty in about 11 seconds, or a good three seconds faster than the MGA. That was a brisk time back in 1956, even for American V8 cars. But unlike everyone else, the TR-3 could also stop faster, harder and repeatedly without the fade that drum brakes invariably experienced, because it was now the first mass-production sports car to have disc brakes.
It would be another decade before the Corvette finally got discs, so this was a big deal. And they performed as well or better than expected. Ten grueling stops from 60mph in a row, and the tenth stop was every bit as fast as the first. This was unprecedented in SCI’s experience.
Disc brakes burst on the sports-racing scene in 1955 at LeMans, where two Triumphs were entered, one with four wheel Dunlop discs, and the other with Girlings on the front and drums at the rear. The Girling-equipped car gave a way very little to the four-disc TS, and as a consequence Triumph chose to go that route, which was of course cheaper too.
SCI noted that disc detractors predicted that they wouldn’t work when wet or dirty, but the opposite was the case. In the wet, after a quick wipe to clear the discs, they worked much better and more consistently than drums.
The three-bearing, wet sleeve pushrod four also got some attention for 1957, with improved porting and bigger SU carbs to take advantage of that. The engine was noted for being responsive and having a wide range of power as well as being “buzzy”.
In addition to the four speed transmission, with “good though beatable synchromesh”, there was also a Laycock overdrive, which could be selected on 2 -4th gear. SCI got the best 0-60 time by using 1, 2, and 2OD. But the real benefit came on the highway, where cruising was much more pleasant, given the buzzy engine.
The handling department was more of a mixed bag. TR’s were known for their firmer than average ride, which is saying a lot given the nature of British sports cars back then. As in…hard. And the lack of suspension travel could cause a rather abrupt transition to oversteer when the inside rear wheel suddenly ran out of travel in a curve and lifted off the pavement, placing too great of cornering forces on the outside rear wheel.
Nice essay! DISC BRAKES? WOW? Mr. Lanchester installed them on his 1902 models – of automobiles, not some girls that he knew. They were, unfortunately, not durable.
“They were, unfortunately, not durable.”
The disc brakes or the girls?
I recall that the Crosley Hotshot had them too, though with a design that was less worked-out.
I wonder how far back Crosley’s early use of off-the-shelf general-aviation disc brakes set back their adoption on American cars. Apparently the aircraft parts suffered from corrosion and premature caliper failure in road use, and most cars were converted to drum brakes.
https://www.brakeandfrontend.com/retro-1949-crosley-first-disc-brake-used-airplane-parts/
This Sports Car Illustrated followed me out of a barbershop during the winter of 1957-58, just about the time Paul was leaving Austria to come to the United States. Paul has done a superlative job of updating these vintage but very detailed reports in the context of automobile development over the last 60 years. I have enjoyed his commentary and analysis as much as the articles themselves.
Out riding my 74 Norton Commando last Sat and what do I see on the road ahead of me? One of these gems in black. Always surprised how tiny these buggers are. We met up at stop sign and exchanged pleasantries and he was off in a flash! Never knew they had discs. Wonderful read as always Paul.
It seems that disc brakes were subject to a lot of wives tales before they became common, much like radial tires were a decade later.
My current generation Toyota Tacoma still has drum brakes on the rear. They work fine in this application, but there are still a lot of old wives’ tales bandied about on the Internet regarding Toyota continuing to use them: “better off road in dusty (or muddy, take your pick) conditions, easier to fix in 3rd world countries (where Tacoma’s aren’t sold)” etc. I suspect it’s just total cost including the parking brake solution, or inertia from the previous generation … and the one before that.
Jaguar actually used disk brakes at LeMans before Triumph, on the sports-racing C Type, but I suppose it’s semantically accurate to say that Triumph used them first on a (production) sports car at LeMans, and the XK150 didn’t get disks until a few years after the TR … but the Citroën DS beat both, though not a sports car. I remember the huge improvement that front disks made on my own Volvo 122S sedan, when my parents still had the last of the 122S wagons that clung to 4 wheel drums for several years after the sedans switched to front disks.
I found an interesting court opinion that dealt with patent litigation in the US on disc brakes. The summary is that Dunlop patented its system in the US (in a process that ran from 1954-60) and licensed it to Bendix – this was the version that Studebaker began using in 1963.
Kelsey-Hayes initially got a sub-license from Bendix, but then discovered an earlier disc brake patent of Hawley, which was further developed by Goodyear in the 40s. Goodyear apparently shopped the design around in the late 40s after some testing with Ford but nobody bit. I suspect this may be the design Crosley used, but the case does not mention Crosley. Anyway K-H stopped paying royalties in late 1965 and was sued by Dunlop.
The Dunlop patent was invalidated in a 1972 ruling that was affirmed in 1973 based on not being sufficiently different from the earlier Hawley-Goodyear design. It notes that around 1961 the industry consensus was that lightweight little English cars may be fine with discs, but that they would never be sufficient for big heavy American cars. Perhaps Studebaker got interested because its cars were smaller and lighter than average. They were certainly all alone in offering discs here for a couple of years.
The whole thing can be read here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/484/407/195398/
I remember my Jaguar Mk 2 had Dunlop disc brakes, with twin piston calipers. The car was maybe seven years old when I bought it, and I had to rebuild the calipers to free off the pistons. I’d already converted my Triumph Herald to front discs using s/h Vitesse parts so I regarded it as fairly routine.
> TR’s were known for their firmer than average ride, which is saying a lot given the nature of British sports cars back then
When I was in my early teens in the Vancouver suburbs, some neighbours had a TR3A which spent most of its time in the garage. I was once given a ride in it… and yes. It was the noisiest, most hard-riding, and most generally uncivilised car I’d ever been in.
The issue of disc brakes aside, I’ve never understood the appeal of these Triumph sports cars. Just like MGs, I consider them to be miniature roofless trucks masquerading as sports cars.
Just by looking at it you instinctively know it would be uncivilised to be in, but just as adam_b reports…
Ironically I’m a big fan of the Triumph 2000-2500 sedans (and wagons) which stylistically and mechanicly are the antithesis of the TRs.
I am too a lover of the “big” Triumph saloons, still own a 2000 Mk1. However I also own a TR4 for over 26 years. Yes ut is not as comfortable as a Saloon but not that bone hard as they might you believe. My wife does not complain when we make big trips in it. Seats are simple but comfortable. I find the car comfortable enough to take it for a drive whenever I want it, usually when the sun shines! Live the roar of that engine and while modern cars probably can run rings around it, it always feel sporty. Love it.
Was it Dick O’Kane who said “Sports Cars are little trucks”?