Dodd, Kelvin SEZ -
(With deletions...)
>
> My comments were made based on the following reference:
>
> "All cars sold in the USA had to be assessed for emissions in relation to a
> class system based on vehicle weight. The MGB just managed to scrape within
> one class but the MGB GT fell in the next class up - where standards were
> tougher.
Hi, Kelvin -
This is interesting - this is the first time I'd heard there was such
a distinction. I suppose the rationale for putting the cars in
different classes was something esoteric like wind resistance. :-)
> I disagree (politely) with the concept that roll standards killed the GT, as
> from experience I can tell you that an MGB GT roof will support the weight
> of at least 2 more MGBs piled on top of it.
Well, that was all over the automotive press at the time. Whether
the car actually *is* safe is a lot different from whether the
government wants to *consider* it safe, and the government did not
consider the BGT "crashworthy" (gotta love that term) in a rollover
situation. Mercedes' run-in with side-impact door beam regulations
is another good example of this regulatory myopia. Mercedes
developed a door with some sort of stressed-frame type construction
that was less resistant to intrusion than the government-mandated
beams in the door. They expected rapid approval from the NHTSA,
but instead found their technology banned in the US, leading to
the necessity to design special (inferior) doors for the US market.
The government's devotion to sealed-beam headlights is another
example, and I'm sure there are dozens more.
--
David Breneman | "Before there were CDs there were
Distributed Systems S/W Analyst | records, and before there were
Airborne Express, Inc. | records, there were 78s."
david.breneman@airborne.com | --- Seen on eBay
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|