> Having read the whole paper, I wouldn't necessarily agree with you
> that this is an 'excuse' - isn't it more a statement of obvious
> standardisation? The issues in the main paper were clear:
> 1. The customer base (end user) was insistent on having or using more
> electrical services that were consumption heavy
> 2. Other component suppliers were clearly moving towards negative
> earth systems in isolation
> 3. Manufacturers who failed to recognise this reqmnt and so equip
> their cars would lose sales
> 3. There was no question of system 'choice' (switchable or
> specifiable) as 'choice' can confound reliability and that affects
> sales
> 4. The U.S. markets was cited as critical to all manufacturers and
> Lucas was in no doubt the U.S. insisted on negative earth - period.
> None of this was a phenomenon peculiar to Standard Triumph - read also
> for every other UK manufacturer as they all changed to neg earth in a
> relatively short period.
Jonmac, Dave and anyone else not already bored to tears :
Yes, of course, the paper Jonmac quoted did go on to give the real reason :
negative ground was becoming a de facto standard throughout the world, and
Lucas was following that standard. My point was simply that the first half
of the paper was (deliberately?) misleading in that it appeared to connect
alternators (with their recognized benefits of better charging at idle and
higher output capacity in a smaller, lighter package) with negative ground
electrical systems.
I've heard that it was Chevrolet/GM that started the negative ground trend
(being at one time the largest auto maker in the world), can anyone confirm
or deny that rumor ? ISTR my Dad saying they were negative ground even when
they were 6 volt systems.
Randall
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|