I'm curious to know the origin of the figure of 800 for the total number of (steel-bodied) Nippies, which I've seen quoted.

There are 97 65s/Nippies on the A7CA Register for which both chassis and body numbers are recorded. The body numbers agree well with the production figures quoted by Wyatt, thus:

Total sports model production for 1933-35: 682
Body number 680 fitted to chassis 237792: December 1935

This suggests that there were no unnumbered bodies. Unfortunately, production data were not broken down by model after 1935, so 1936-37 figures have to be estimated.

Now, the first steel-bodied car off the production line apparently had body number 399, implying that just under 400 aluminium 65s were produced. The factory numbering did not distinguish between aluminium and steel bodies. The last body number in the Register is 974, fitted to a car produced around late March '37. Rounding this up to 1000 still only gives (1000 – 400) = 600 steel-bodied cars.

Am I missing something?

Purely from recollection, but I thought most estimates of around 800 Nippies would have included the Type 65 production. I don't recall anyone authoritive saying the 800 was just a steel-bodied total. Also I've yet to see where numbers stamped on tunnels had a direct correlation with cars produced of any of the Seven models. In the case of AEWs, Arrows etc, perhaps the floorpans were stamped prior to being sent off for the OEMs to fit their respective bodies? Any help? Cheers, Bill in Oz

Thanks Bill: I was expecting to hear from you on this one! I've only been able to find two estimates of production in print. One is in Rinsey Mills' Original Austin Seven (275 65s, 800 Nippies), and the other on the poster of Longbridge-bodied Sevens produced by the A7CA in 1985 (400 65s, 800 Nippies). If you know of others, I'd be pleased to hear from you.

The correlation between chassis and body numbers for the sports bodies seems quite good, which is the point I was trying to make in my posting. I'll send you a copy when I've had a chance to type it out if you like.

It hadn't occurred to me that AEWs and Arrows (and perhaps Aussie coachbuilders?) used Works floorpans: presumably this would reduce the estimate further. I think I need to go and lie down in a darkened room for a while.

Hope your autumn is better than our spring.
John

P.S. Any ideas where the estimate of 275 65s comes from?

John - On reflection I perhaps should not have said numbers actually stamped in floorpans for OEMs, but numbers allocated to the various builders. My turn to go and lie down. Unsure as to where the 275 came from,as far as I know the total sports production for 1933 was 234. Whether this included any steel-bodied Nippies is up to the experts as to when the latter really did commence. (It's difficult to ascertain this from various articles & opinions - even the great Bill Boddy claimed the Nippy came out before the 65 & further said the steel bodies commenced in 1935!) One question to be asked is how does the 234 ally with the body-number of nearly 400? From 1933, then the total sports production for 1934 was 228, with 1935 showing 220 as you've suggested. Subtract from these totals less than 80 Speedies. I, like you, don't have sports figures for 1936 and 7, but perhaps someone averaged out 200 per year ('34 on) to get their 800? This latter hardly accurate as I don't think Nippies were built right up to the end of 1937 either. So your estimate probably nearer the mark. It would be interesting to hear from Chris Gould on this subject. Cheers, Bill in Oz

Hi Bill
Jack French worked at Austin and he claimed that he owned the first steel bodied Nippy.This was body Number 399. I see no reason to doubt that he was correct, so that would mean that would mean 398 Aluminium bodied cars were made. I suppose it is possible that some floor pans were sent to outside coach builders, but I think it unlikely.
I don't know how many steel bodied cars were made, but they must have been produced after 13th March 1937. This is the date that they were fitted with a lower lift camshaft and single valve springs. This information came from Bob Wyatts book showing the changes in specifications. This is the last mention of the Nippy so I don't know how long it was produced after that.
Someone mentioned that Bill Boddy had said that the Nippy came out before the 65. The confusion was probably caused by the handbooks. The 65 carburettor is mentioned in one. The next hand book referred to the Nippy carburettor. Then the following one referred to the 65 carburettor again.

Chris,
I hesitate to correct someone like you on an Austin Seven forum, but my father never worked for Austin, ever.
Though he did at one time own such a Nippy, his pre-war work in the motor trade was with a now-defunct retailer / service garage in Newmarket.

Thank you all for your replies. Perhaps I should come clean and explain why I have been poking about in the Register. After 40-odd years of ownership (most of them off the road, I'm sorry to admit) I finally got around to checking the body number of my Nippy, which is 382. So, an earlier steel body than 399, although fitted to a later car, chassis no. 196722 (not 196772 as appears in the Register). There are three or four Nippies/65s in the Register around this period without body numbers listed, so there could well be lower-numbered steel bodies around, which would affect our estimates of 65 production.
(Must get out more...)

That looks like 382 to me???

Oops. Thanks Austin: now corrected.

Hi Roger
Thank you for correcting me. I apologise for getting it wrong.
Chris

Hi John
You seem to have proved me wrong and that Jack French did not have the earliest steel bodied Nippy. Though I am sure that he honestly thought that he did. When I researched these car back in the late 60es I was not aware of Body numbers. The latest aluminium bodied car that I found was chassis number 196251. A friend fitted the body from this car onto a later Nippy chassis.
I have just found a note that chassis number 196067 seems to have a steel body.
Jack French wrote many aluminium 65 bodies were in stock when the Nippy was introduced. They were used on the Nippy until stocks were exhausted.
There were 20 steel bodies left at the end of production and they were sold off.
That gives even more for you to ponder on. I don't think we will ever be able to determine accurately how many of each were made. Our aim in life should just be to locate and restore as many as possible.

Thanks Chris, good to hear from you: I think it's highly likely that Jack French had the first steel-bodied CAR, although there seem to be earlier steel BODIES. The relationship between chassis numbers and body numbers is fairly random on a car to car basis. I'd assumed this was because numbers were stamped in the body shop, and the bodies were then stacked, so that the body on top of the stack (with a high number) would go on an earlier chassis than the bodies below it (with lower numbers).
Interested to hear about 196067. I believe there's also a very early steel-bodied car Somewhere in Scotland, but I can't seem to coax it out of hiding. Hello Ed, are you there?

Hi John,

Sorry for not being in touch...I have emailed you as well. It's been magazine weekend again so have been busy doing that.

I can confirm that 196067 was a steel bodied 65/very early Nippy. It had full 65 spec including 65 steering column and bluemels wheel.

Anyway back to the mag :o)

Ed

Does that 'special' with no panels and a slab tank on the bay of E have 65/Nippy origins. Looks like a nippy carb and manifold to me

The exhaust manifold looks like a Super Accessories bunch of bananas, and I bet the inlet is from the same source, with a Ford 8 carburetter.

Further to all the comments in this thread, this has now turned up:

Nippy on eBay

It has Chassis No 196018 (1934 not 1933) and looks suspiciously like a steel-bodied car. If so, it's the earliest so far. Ho hum, back to the drawing board...

Hello from Sussex with another Nippy. well a 65, they popping up everywhere

The newly purchased 65/Nippy in aluminium does indeed bear EB 25 on the trans tunnel just behind the handbrake.

Car Number B8 1987

Chassis Number 178381

Just purchased said car and the original engine has been lost in time, or holed in time.

Car in pretty good condition, all surface rust except for the floorpan, which will require replacing. Famous last words, the chassis needs welding in one spot, though it is all saveable and an early one by my little research



Have a feeling I am going to need some help in reclaiming the original registration number as have no logbook with the car. DVLA say i need a qualified person as no backup paperwork. though the registration is painted on the car.

Provided you are in one of the A7CA's Member Clubs, then there will be an agreed person to help you.
It should be in your A7 Club magazine somewhere, or contact the Chairman (Memb Secs, have plenty to do already ).

Full details Here

and Here for list of Clubs

Good luck trying to retain the number, .....

Hi AJC, Don't rely on the chassis number as quoted on the plate attached to the nearside scuttle. Check the number on the chassis itself. These cars were often rebuilt onto Ruby chassis frames with the better extensions to support the rear of the body.

Really?
Often?

Yes took some doing though the plate matches the number on the chassis, found it using quotethisnumber pdf....beneath all the old paint and oil.....

Pictorially, what is the difference in the two chassis though? thought the Ruby one was longer than a 7

OK John, sometimes. Sorry.

To AJC, as briefly as possible - the original chassis with 6'3" wheelbase were lengthened around late 1931 to a 6'9" wheelbase, components much the same as the last of the short w/b. These were known as high chassis. The extensions still finished short of the rear axle and the only main change was alteration of the two brackets on the front crossmember to accommodate the 4-speed gearbox when introduced. When the Ruby was introduced in 1934, still 6'9" w/b, the chassis was stronger, had different ends to the crossmembers, mainly had the extensions extended up and over the rear axle to support bodies better. These were called low chassis, but were not originally used on the sold Sports versions, they still retaining the "high" chassis with short extensions. When a 65 or Nippy starts to sag due to the weight of tyre, petrol tank etc in rear, some fit the Ruby-type chassis under their cars to help support the body better. Cheers, Bill in Oz

Thank you for that clear explanation for a complete novice
Most appreciated, my learning curve is just starting.

Have as a starter for ten, or a 7, purchased Chis Gould's Book on 65's and Nippys from a certain Mr Cochrane.

With the number now gleaned and appearing from the chassis from under the nitromors, plus your and David Cochrane's description it is a old sports chassis and not a ruby, though i do see how the Ruby support would help the rear on close inspection. There is not a lot holding the rear body up!

I've seen 5 LHD cars over the years

Anyone know how may we're produced and sent to the US?

Bill, following your outline descriptor for 6-3 into 6-9 chassis', and high into low chassis evolution: when did the front forging evolve from four-in-line cowhorn holes to the angled pairs of radiator horn holes? Were ALL long chassis' angled?
Were the front cross member centres 'dropped' for cars built with four-speed gearboxes whether high-chassis or low?
Third query: how many varieties of long-chassis rails were produced? You noted the long high-chassis replacement with Ruby profile rails. What is the difference in size? Is there a much different profile or are they simply with or without the upturned extension to the rearward inner edge? Is there an easy way to distinguish them?

The front forging was changed for the new Ruby type in 1934.

I think there were 4 front forging types;
V. Early, no shock absorber mounting and no cow horn mounts.
Early, no shock absorber but with cow horn mounts.
1929 - 1934 coil ignition, chrome rad. shell (also Sports, Vans and Military to 1937?)
Ruby type (angled)

The long chassis was produced from about 1932 until 1939 in two basic forms.

Not all long wheelbase chassis were 'angled'
1932 to 1934 with four inline cow horn holes (Sports, Vans and Military somewhat later)
1934/39 Ruby types used the angled forging

Cross members.....
Early type with closed ends was used for magneto types.
1929/1934 straight (also sports, vans and military to 1937?)
1934/39 Ruby type with 'drop' to allow for gearbox removal from inside car.

Long chassis rails.....
1932/1934 (also sports, vans and military to 1937?) shallow top hat return.
1934/1939 Ruby type extended top hat return to rivet to Ruby rear extensions

Henry noted

I think there were 4 front forging types;
V. Early, no shock absorber mounting and no cow horn mounts.
Early, no shock absorber but with cow horn mounts.
*
1929 - 1934 coil ignition, chrome rad. shell (also Sports, Vans and Military to 1937?)
Ruby type (angled)

*Not that germane to the discussion but there is -1925 - 1928, shock absorber and cow horns

Tony

It might be worth mentioning that the 65/Nippy chassis has a shorter rear crossmember than the standard frame to allow the body sides to pass it. The standard frame extends under the rear of the running boards.

Could it be that none know the answer?

Location: Eastern Front (POLAND)

just perusing this old thread and the chassis order spreadsheet on the Register.

Can anyone explain why 65s had car numbers of AEB * and B8 * or B9 *, seemingly at the same time, or rather not in successive series?

The only determining constant for chronology in the spreadsheet must be the chassis number, as registration date could presumably be very variable? Or would chassis be stockpiled and used in a different order?

Earliest 65 I've found in the spreadsheet chassis 165448 (an error?) then 167602 with an AEB10 car number. (20/1/33 reg) then lots of B8- car numbers, but yet the latest (193712) is back on an AEB number... preceded by a 193013 car on a B9-!

Is it perhaps because the database isn't verified, and there is a lot of variation in what provided?

Or am I missing something?

Location: W.Sussex

Ok, scratch last. I can see the BODY number is badly recorded, if it exists, in lots of cases.

As the EB65 portion of the Register database is so small, its an interesting exercise taking a snap of this and then applying a sort on ascending chassis number before forming a new column for supposed body number based on the best guess of what has been supplied for the Register entry in any of the other columns! Splitting the whole into registration dates of either 1933 or 1934 gives an interesting pattern. Most in either the top or bottom half of the range respectively, but with more variation than one would expect, suggesting they built a lot of cars and then waited until there was more demand, which isn't shown by the entire A7 ascending chassis number register.

I guess as the timescales involved are actually so short in real terms, looking for any sort of pattern with a background of a complicated supply chain is a bit of a useless preoccupation. But its a good way of getting to know the extant cars and matching them to past records. Its remarkable that long 'sold' items.. I.e going back 4 or 5 years.. are still archived on the web (from things like The classic car site listings and ebay) on google searching.. Despite the fact they arent accessible through the sites themselves.

It is a bit like playing Bingo...

Some thoughts on the production figs from the most recent Survivors database statistics, here, just to stimulate further conversation!

Location: W.Sussex

this is the car directly prior to Nick Boorman's. The email address just bounces back now; anyone know what's happening with it and whether AJC managed to get it re-registered?