In a message dated 5/13/99 2:37:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
lambroving@worldnet.att.net writes:
<< Sadly, the MIRA air-bag
crash tests had been conducted using cars with Fink/ Isis bumper
mounting structures,and for reasons of liability it was mandated by
MMC that both U.S. Agents use this arrangement. Both Sharples
and Fink were handed an agreement to sign confirming that this
mounting system be used on all the SRS-equipped cars. The only
tiny victory won at this meeting was the adoption of a 17 1/2" mid-
point height for the bumpers which I had suggested in my letter as
being the current standard for European marques here as opposed
to Fink's totally absurd 21" mid-point height mounting. (It should be
noted that Sharples/ Cantab had successfully certified cars during
the previous ten years using a 16 1/2" mid-point height and heavy
cast metal half U-shaped mounting brackets which retained the
stock wing flashers with minor modification.) In both articles there
are photos of Isis cars using some kind of bumper sweep brackets
to mount both bumpers in spite of the fact that structures were
incorporated on the chassis of the NAS cars at MMC to mount
BMW bumper shocks through the wings and rear deck at 17 1/2".
Charles Morgan confirmed to me today that it is still the intention
of MMC that these mounts be used as agreed in the prior document.
As this bumper mounting has been a real source of annoyance to
me from the start, I have requested that MMC bring Mr. Fink into
compliance, especially in view of the fact that Mr. Fink caused
the issue to be created in the first place. I expect that Charles
Morgan, Mark Aston, and the new Sales Director, Matthew Parkin
will need to see the evidence of the articles themselves, but I
remain adamant about seeing some redress, given the painstaking
amount of extra work required by both myself and Cantab to
soften the visual impact of this bumper shock mounting. These
included painting of the shock gaiters in body colour, mounting
fog lamps on brackets in the approximate standard location and
just inboard of the mounts, positioning the rear fog and reversing
lamps on special brackets below the rear bumper in such a way
as to hide the exposed lowline rack mounting bracket and give
the bumper a lower appearance, etc. etc. NONE of this would
have been necessary had it been possible to use the former
Cantab mounts.
>>
I rather hope Mr. Lamb that this rather virulent attack against Mr. Fink does
not represent the views of Charles as it seems to. Since I have no financial
interest in Morgans (Just a happy enthusiast of some 30 odd years) my
feelings toward Bill is that of admiration for his endeavors here in Texas
where he has always accommodated us. The folks at Contab we also consider as
friends and quite frankly I could not care one whit where the bumpers are as
they should be removed as soon as possible anyway. Air bags are interesting
but are just something else to go wrong. I realize that extrainous bits will
be required by governments with nothing to do than to protect us from
ourselves as they try desperately to force conformity on all.
Quite frankly due to this discussion I went to Barns and Nobel to see the
articles. I had given up on both of these magazines many years ago, in the
case of C&D after they had consigned Morgan to history with the cute pictures
of the fellow wearing plus fours, and R&T after it was aquired by CBS and
began to be more interested in articles about car stereos. Both magazines
are supporters of engineering which assures that every part is identical and
neither understands that which is tailored, only that with logo
identification.
Harris
|