I ENJOYED immensely reading Nigel Burton's article on the Triumph TR7 (D&S, December 4). The man clearly researched his subject thoroughly.

Although at first glance the offering seems bang on the money, some discrepancies exist. It wasn't British Leyland's insistence on those black plastic impact-absorbing bumpers. The Americans forced both those upon us and the bumpers latterly fitted on the MG in order to meet US impact legislation.

Also the intimation that the move from Speke was purely because of militants is not accurate. Mrs Thatcher had already rationalised union legislation.

The move was rationalisation - economies of scale were recognised even in those days.

For the record, the government changed hire purchase terms eleven times between 1957 and 1968. Such unwarranted interference by governments of all colours to the 1970s motor manufacturer was bound to affect future investment and reflect therefore in the design and components used, the reason an existing engine, door handles et al were used.

Governments back in the day you see would use taxation on vehicles to heat up or cool the economy, affecting sales dramatically - a far cry from the independence enjoyed by Nissan, Honda, Toyota etc here in the UK today.

Imagine the furore if any current government took such steps now and quite right too.

I am intrigued also to know the "proper sports car" that Leyland built a decade later. Leyland were dissolved and the remains rechristened Rover Group in 1986.

As for Giorgetto Giugiaro and his criticism of the design, for all his notable successes, remember the Yugo 1.6?

No, nobody does. What about the biggest British failure of all, the Delorean? Or perhaps possibly the ugliest car ever for all its engineering excellence the Golf Mk1? Or the Isuzu Piazza/Impulse perhaps? He designed them all. I would have a Harris Mann designed TR7 over all those any day.

Richard Baker, Middleton One Row.