healeys
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Spinners

To: tomfelts@earthlink.net, healeys@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: Spinners
From: "Dave Murphy" <roadwarriordave@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:05:47 -0500
Tom,
I don't know the answer. I think the leapers on post Mark 10 Jags (i.e all 
XJ's) were dealer installed. I bet they got around the legislation that way. 
If your leaper was factory installed, the current law must allow it -  
i.e.maybe they determined that low slung leapers wouldn't disembowell  
pedestrians the way Plymouth rockets would.  I just remember that on the '68 
cars all the cool stuff (I was a 13 year old car nut at the time) like 
spinners and rigid hood ornaments (like the 4 point boxed star on the 
Lincoln Continental) were gone in the name of pedestrian safety. All 
subsequent (1969 and on)US factory installed hood ornaments had spring 
mounts.

I just remember that pedestrian "safety" was the reason for elimination of 
spinners - not a concern that a wheel might be lost as was being suggested 
by some folks on the list. That was the reason for my post.

I'm glad my BJ8 has spinners. If it was a late '67 with hex nuts, I'd change 
them to spinners immediately and curse the Ralph Naderites in the process. I 
often think how fortunate it is that the big Healey was discontinued before 
it had to suffer lowered compression ratios, catalytic converters, smog 
pumps, sealed Stromberg carburettors, retarded timing, plastic dashboards, 5 
mph bumpers, rollover bars, side impact door beams and air bags. It remained 
a pure car true to its designers intent and was not corrupted significantly 
by the government.
-Dave

>From: "tom felts" <tomfelts@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: tomfelts@earthlink.net
>To: "Dave Murphy" <roadwarriordave@hotmail.com>, alan@andysnet.net, 
>GSFuqua1@aol.com
>CC: Awgertoo@aol.com, dwflagg@juno.com, sbyers@ec.rr.com,    
>healeys@autox.team.net
>Subject: RE: Spinners
>Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:50:20 -0500
>
>My 97 XJ6L Jag has a standing hood ornament---a Leaper
>Jaguar----so---------how did they manage to keep adding them?  Maybe it is
>not "rigid stand-erect"---whatever that is.
>
>Regards
>Tom
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Dave Murphy <roadwarriordave@hotmail.com>
> > To: <alan@andysnet.net>; <GSFuqua1@aol.com>
> > Cc: <Awgertoo@aol.com>; <dwflagg@juno.com>; <sbyers@ec.rr.com>;
><healeys@autox.team.net>
> > Date: 12/12/05 7:23:37 PM
> > Subject: Spinners
> >
> > I distictly recall spinners were outlawed on new cars due to the
>perceived
> > danger they posed to pedestrians.
> >
> > The same legislation also eliminated fake spinners on wheel covers and
>rigid
> > stand-erect hood ornaments. None of these could not be sold after 
>January
> > 1st 1968. A lot of the '67 cars have the rigid ornaments (e.g. Plymouth
>Fury
> > and Lincoln) but none of the '68 cars did (-Rolls Royce may be the sole
> > hardship case exception.) Spring loaded installations (like Mercedes had
> > used for years) allowed erect hood ornaments to return on some 1969's.
>But
> > we haven't seen a new spinner wheel cover or knock-off spinner since 
>1967.
> > BMC's introduction of the big hex-nuts in mid '67 was probably just in
> > anticipating or in keeping-up with the elimination of spinner wheel
>covers
> > on the US-built cars in September '67 for the new '68 cars.
> > -Dave Murphy
> > 66 BJ8
> > SEMAHC




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>