Dating my Safari

[Brian M]

From: shove2001 (Original Message) Sent: 30/05/2005 15:58
Hi all.

I would be grateful for some help dating my safari. It has been in my family for about 30yrs and I think it is from around 1962.

It has a dble bed and a bunks so I think it would be known as a 12/4. I have searched for any plate that may have a serial number but can't find one or any indication of where one may have been fitted.

Please let me have your thoughts or any suggestions of things to check for.

Regards

Mark

Note from BM - The pictures could not be transferred but I will try again in the future

[Brian M]

From: OliverShaw1 Sent: 30/05/2005 18:50

Mark,

The photographs seem to suggest that it may be at a transition point between two models. My best guess is that you are about right in placing it at around 1962.

You might find two message strings on this (Dating Safaris) message board helpful: "Exterior Changes" and "An Early Safari".

Key identifying features would seem to be the broad stripe between the windows and the droop to the front windows, which on their own would seem to place it in the 1962 - 1967 bracket, plus the very distinctive cusp to the roofline above the door, which would seem to place it a little earlier than that. I gather that most of us had not seen that extreme roofline until March this year, when Brian posted a photograph of a Safari that Alec Gatherer had sent in. That seems to be an earlier one than yours, but with the same roof shape, and the roof shape provoked a bit of discussion.

Certainly pre-1966; compare with the photo of the 1966 15-4 reproduced from a sales brochure (Pictures: Old Classic Safari Caravans: Safari 15-4 1966).

In view of all these clues, possibly therefore 1962, at a transition point in the shape of the roof.

However the second of the references above ("An Early Safari") throws a little uncertainty into the situation. This has the same roof shape as yours, but the sides and windows are very clearly earlier than yours, and earlier than we normally associate with the 1962-66/7 era. However see Message 5 in that string; lifesafari has firsthand knowledge of two of them, one of which he used to own, and he is certain that it is a 1964 model. So at this stage "yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice" ... ...

You might also be able to date it from the chassis number. This is quite distinct from the caravan serial number, and identifies the chassis on which it is built. On the later models this is found on a plate on the side of the A-frame, underneath the 'van on the right hand side; you may of course need to do some considerable cleaning up to find it. I don't know whether this is helpful with one as far back as your year, but certainly I have found it useful with a later Safari, and it is at least worth a try.

When I wanted information about the chassis of my 1978 17/2 about 10 years ago I wrote to Al-Ko, who had taken over B&B Trailers (the firm who built the chassis on these 'vans), and they were readily able to identify the individual chassis from the chassis number. (The rest of their reply was not quite so helpful or accurate, but at the time I had the advantage of knowing retired managing director of B&B Trailers, who was the engineer who designed the chassis. Since his advice about his own design parameters conflicted with Al-Ko's, I regarded his as being the more closely informed!)

Model designation: if, as you seem to think, the designation system that was used in the later models had already come in (e.g. 12/4, if you are right in that), the first figure is the body length (in feet), and the second figure is the number of berths. Both figures are therefore easy to ascertain by measurement or counting respectively.

Hope this is helpful,




Oliver

[Brian M]

From: shove2001 Sent: 01/06/2005 10:44
Hi, Thanks for your thoughts, I will try and find a chassis no when it's a little less damp underfoot and report anything I find (or not).

Interestingly I was looking through the 1970's sales brouchures and my van is almost identical to the "13-4 Sales Drawing" internally and externally, but my van chassis is only 12' long when measured at the base of the white superstructure and the front window is only split in two.

This might this mean my van may be a little younger as the eight years from 1962 to 1970's seem a long time on a range of vans that generaly evolve in designs. I will have a chat with Dad and see what his recolections are of when he bought it and how old it was.

Regards to all

Mark

[Brian M]

From: OliverShaw1 Sent: 01/06/2005 16:30

I have never checked the point, but have always assumed that the body length is taken at its longest point, i.e. just below the windows. Because of the shape of the end panels of Safaris there will be a substantial difference between the length there and the length at chassis height.

I can't check it against my own 'van at the moment because it is in the dealer's for servicing, but has anyone in the Group checked an actual measurement against the model designation (on a 'van where the model designation is not in doubt)?

If I am right, your one may well be a 13/4. Safari design did indeed evolve, more or less continuously but only a little at a time, hence the mumerous details that are emerging on our "Dating" message board. At this stage I still think your original estimate of 1962 is about right, and I would not change it just because of the similarity of interior between yours and that of 1970, and your feeling that 8 years is a long time in design evolution; when the company had a really good interior design they did not make major changes in it just for the sake of change!

I still feel that the bar to dating your one any later than about 1962 is the distinct cusp to the roof line above the door; that indeed would suggest it is earlier that 1962, rather than later, but coupled with the droop to the windows and the broad stripe between the windows I feel it is right at the start of this series.

Over the years the manufacturer seems to have had numerous "second thoughts" on the ideal design of front windows; while they seem to have liked an unobstructed view and to have liked to have windows able to open, they also seem to have been concerned about avoidance of leaks and (my own guess) about the strength of a full-width single window; hence the many changes of design. It seems that in the early sixties they were using what is often described as a two-piece front window, but was in fact a side-by-side pair of separate front windows, with a pillar of the bodywork between them. Now we have the 1970 drawings and photographs, which show that by that year this had changed to a 3-piece one, but this seems to be of very different construction; a very elegant affair which is essentially a single window with two vertical dividers which are not pillars of the bodywork, and which may well be there purely for reasons of appearance.

Then later in the seventies they moved to an undivided single window, but for most of that era they declined to make this an opening window, because of the risk of leaks. The 1978 handbook acually states that this "eliminates the problems of leaks so frequently found with front opening windows". My understanding within Safari circles at the time was that their concern was because of the uniquely severe problems of a very large window on the front wall of the van (so getting the full force of the windage whilst towing), and that they felt that fitting a large opening window in that position was just asking for trouble - notwithstanding that 30-40 years earlier opening windscreens were almost universally fitted on cars, and I am not aware that they had a generally perceived problem of leaking.

By 1981 however they were fitting opening front windows; clearly by then they felt secure enough in their construction and fittings to be able to feel that they had mastered the risk..

In passing, the incorrect designation "13-4" and similar on my titles to the Sales Drawings is only because computers will not accept the " / " sign in a filename, so this was the nearest that I could get. The manufacturer's own designation was always to use the oblique " / ".

Hope this helps,




Oliver