Is there still a requirement for headlights to be at least a certain height from the ground?
As I recall the large degree of camber of the front wheels of early Hillman Imps was the result of a quick fix to raise the headlights to the required minimum. On later models I think the vertical position of the pivots of the front suspension arms was altered to take out the camber without lowering the headlights.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Two feet to the centre of the light?
Sits back and waits for various people to post saying " Ah yes, but what about the Gluggmobile with elliptoid shape lights?
|
Interesting as according to Rv Lighting Regs, 1989, it splits
dipped headlamp [Shed 4] and main beam [Shed 5)
Dipped headlamp on vehicles pre 1.1.56 no requirement,
after that date 500mm minimum height.
Max 1200mm except vehicle first used before 1.1.52 when no requirement.
Mainbeam headlamp: No requirement.
dvd
|
|
|
|
As I recall the large degree of camber of the front wheels of early Hillman Imps was the result of a quick fix to raise the headlights to the required minimum.
IIRC it was the height of the sidelights which caused the jacking-up of the front of the Imp. I think longer springs were fitted. Have been looking for a link to back this up, but no luck.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
|
Wasn't the MG raised for the American market as the headlights were also too low? Blocks under the suspension to increase height by 1½", IIRC.
|
|
Wasn't the 'high-light' Morris Minor of 1952 another victim of these regulations? Apparently Issigonis hated what they did to the original, more aerodynamic shape. It didn't seem to hurt sales, though.
|
|
|
Wasn't the MG raised for the American market as the headlights were also too low? Blocks under the suspension to increase height by 1½", IIRC.
DD,
I think it was the US safety regs that caused this...the bumber height of the original chrome bumper MGB was too low and hard, hence the revised (higher) rubber bumper model....with wrecked handling and much poorer looks.
StarGazer
|
|
|
|
|