Dear Nigel
You are correct about the brakes , the car must have been an earlier one , I
do know that chrysler in America did not believe that an Imperial of that
year existed and came over to see it , sorry I am vague about it but it was
before I knew Mr Barfield so the story is a bit second hand.
David
>From: PNigelW@xxxxxxx
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: IML: 1929 Imperial
>Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:33:06 EST
>
>David,
>
>That surprises me, had it been an earlier car with externally contracting
>brake shoes I could understand it as I believe these can be hairy in the
>wet....but a 1929 car with (modern!) internal contracting should not be a
>problem...of
>course the age of the tyres on a 29 car could also give poor braking
>characteristics in the wet...if the rubber had become too hard...
>
>Regards
>
>Nigel
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network