I was just reading tonight about why MG had to raise the bumper height - it
wasn't simply regulations that Detroit was fudging, but to meet the heights
that were in use by Detroit. These were determined by the need to avoid the
bodywork hitting sloping drives because the cars had such large front and
rear overhangs.
PaulH.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Woodruff <tonyw@mailmedia.com>
To: <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: no-LBC content:......now we're moving more into LBCrelated
content!
> If I'm not mistaken, I believe these same regulations are the ones that
forced MG to raise the MGB to a more standard height. I also heard
something several years ago about why there were 3 wipers - some sort of
regulation about the percentage of the wind-screen that needed to be cleared
by the wipers.
>
> Interesting how the US government looks the other way when Detroit is
fudging the rules, but MG was forced to do silly things like put on a rubber
bumper, raise the car's height and add the extra wiper!
>
> Tony Woodruff
> 67 MGB (down low and with 2 wipers!)
>
>
> >>> Dan Dwelley <ddwelley@excite.com> 3/23/2000 9:35:35 AM >>>
> If you look at the regulations of many states, there is a height at which
> the bottom edge of a vehicles bumper may be off the ground. Some states;
> it's 20" maximum. This means that if the bottom of your bumper is any
higher
> than 20" off the ground, your vehicle is in violation of the law. This
> equates to a failure for inspection...unfortunately, these laws are never
> enforced...I think there is some federal regulation somewhere as well.
Just
> my thoughts...I remember seeing this somewhere.
>
> Dan Dwelley
> 77 Midget
> Alexandria, Va.
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:25:04 -0500, Robert Alan Reisse wrote:
>
> > I think that has been verified by the acknowledgement of GM, Ford,
> Chrysler
> > and a host of foreign manufactures that they need to install protection
> on
> > their SUV and other large vehicles for crash protection for the average
> > car. A driver of an average car is three times more likely to be killed
> in
> > a collision with an SUV type vehicle then if the other vehicle is an
> > average car.
> >
> > At one point all cars had to have their bumpers and lights within
> specific
> > ranges for the protection of all. SUV's and Trucks certainly have
voided
> > that idea to the peril of the rest of us.
> >
> > I am sick and tired of driving average vehicles and being blinded by
the
> > lights of some SUV or pick up that are at my eye height and are bearing
> > down on me.
> >
> > Maybe someday the regulators will act up and require some modifications
> to
> > these gas guzzling behemoths and we can again have a sane set of
vehicles
> > on the roads.
> >
> > Bob Reisse, PH.D and proud of the acheivement.
> >
> > At 10:41 AM 3/23/00 -0600, David C Little field wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:18:46 -0500 DOUGLAS_RUSSELL@nyc.yr.com writes:
> > >> 5. I believe you're the unsuspecting victim of flawed logic to
> > >> think that
> > >> the roads will be safer without SUVs.
> > >> All things considered, it's the driver not the vehicle that
> > >> determines safety.
> > >
> > >Yes, but the effect of a bad driver is multiplied several times when
> that
> > >driver is driving a SUV. They are three times as likely to kill
someone
> > >compared to car.
> > >
> > >I'd rather be hit by an idiot in a Neon than an idiot in an Excursion
> > >while driving my MGA. YES!! MG CONTENT _FINALLY_ ACHIEVED!! [insert
> > >applause]
> > >
> > >David Littlefield
> > >Houston, TX
> > >'62 MGA MkII
> > >'51 MGTD
> > >'88 Jaguar XJ-S
> > >
> > >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> > >
>
>
> Dan Dwelley
> 77 Midget
> Alexandria, Va.
>
>
>
>
>
> Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite
> Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp
>
>
|