ruxy

Lights / lens had to be E marked , hence the Midget Gems became defunct during 1979 approx. The Lighting Regs. extanct , are quite complex (and I don't wish to go researching into them). Basically they are subject of positional dimensions for height & centres , light intensity (this will be why you have FRONT amber and REAR amber lens. Side and indicator changes sometimes have to be made depending on type of main beam dip. The trafficators must be seen far better than they had to be prior to E , if they can't be seen satisfactory - then wing side markers must also be fitted. It could be that they were moved topmost at the front for best visibility , at front (lower) position they could be shrouded by the front bumperettes. I say this because I was once reliably informed that this is why mil. TUM's that are fitted with bug-eyes are not fitted with front bumperettes, the tow pin bumper blades are drilled to take them (the lower lamp would be masked more than on a Lightweight). --------------------------- Regarding L'wt contracts of 1980 (and possibly some 1979) - many were extra to British MOD (Rover were prevented from delivery to a certain Middle East country) - I know some of the features were specifically ordered by this ME country .. I don't know - just speculating , possibly the lamps were positioned for that countries requirements and not re-worked ?

What I would have to say - you and many others may consider quite convincing and before you know it is carved in stone. Then MOT examiners and VOSA pick up on it and then it could cause many people a load of bother. I quite like the Joseph Lucas "Midget Gems" - so think yourself lucky.

Would probably be a eBay - Buy & Sell job

FVE22A/87 item 3 for 300 RHD vehicles & item 4 for 217 vehicles March to June 1979 Rover Mods L16913/17364/17668 Now do you want me to tell you EXACTLY - what mix of bug-eye and glass lens you should have on ????

I have plenty of documentary evidence and a theory or two , not lost any sleep over it (yet) - BUT it would be pure supposition for me to pontificate further ......

And I guess you are FVE22A-115 Item 3, 4, 15, 16 or 24 (WHICH ONE ?) - but then I am guesstimating after 24 - so Dec. 1980 ?

No - he would not be confused , 1980 builds were relatively clearcut. If he had the build instructions for 1979 - then he would be confused. Rover Mods L16913/17364/17668 Contract No. FVE22A/78 Jan 1979 Contract No. FVE22A/87 March to June Contract No. FVE22A/94 November 1979 On these , if you wish to be a rivet counter , then you need to have a "correct" mix of glass and plastic bug-eyes in correct position .....

Rover No. 608180 publication Issued May 1972 Issued October 1977 Issued April 1979 ? But that would not get you on track, and in fact it probably the reason you are making a note of lamps as you are !!!

The Rover 1 (S2A) User Manual (dated August 1968) states on page 124 (293 Turnlights) The front turnlights are mounted in the front wing panels adjacent to the side lights at the outside edge of the front wings. The rear turnlights are situated on the rear body above the stop/tail lights. If you study period photographs of S2A with headlamps in the grille panel - then the turnlamps are consistant and correct. ============== Bug-eye turnlights - probably more important to have those marked FRONT on the front and those marked REAR on the rear (most times found incorrect). I don't believe a particular contract would leave Solihull with lamps incorrectly positioned. There were changes (due to Lighting Regs - such as rear fog lamps). -------------- Mark Cooks book - page 95 & 96 00 WA 25 "Trials Vehicle" - so a valid exception. -------------- I would only consider a period photograph that was factory fresh - in the book you will find some L'wts with front bumperettes , that should not have them fitted in theory - and this may be your best clue.

Brunel was better at launching ships he built for slipping ,,, ... what if What you got was Stephenson 4'-8.1/2" and the good old Warflat http://www.movcon.org.uk/History/Documents/DID/D-MCHS%200140.htm

================================ The Land Rover part number for this bolt BH110281L , I think if you investigate further you will find it is only 10mm dia. and not 12mm dia. ..... Not very good on 8.8gr in double shear.

Only a monocoque counts towards the historic status points , Land Rover - it is the chassis frame , the bodywork counts for nothing.

=============================== That has to be well noted. I have often wondered about this aspect of chassis ferrous DNA , it seems you can renew tow-members or even fit a half chassis , all the x-members , all the outriggers and keep nibbling away at what is left (or just sweep the rust wastage off the garage floor & bin it) - providing you maintain that last 1/2" x 4" bit of dumb-iron with the branded number (and obviously if a PO has renewed the dumb irons - then the proof is gone in any case). I have always maintained that if you have proof of legal title to ownership of two used chassis then this is a possibility - just never asked the authorities.

Just wondering if you have considered all aspects of your chassis research . Your £50 S3 chassis - did you get any documentation with it ? Have you (alternatively) identified the serial number off the chassis and done a search with Heritage Motor Centre at Gaydon - this is the only possibility of maintainig free road tax legally. There were very few S3 made up to the end of 1972 - so you accept that it will probably not have the road tax historic status that a new chassis from Richards would benefit from. Don't dispose of the combat chassis - you may need it as evidence - if at some later date you wish to move the remaining parts of the truck on to a new chassis as funds allow.

================================ SOLEX were good - the fewer component parts the better

Just bolt it on the Rover 2.1/4 pet. in that Shoreland - if it lifts off better than with a 36IV we will all be bidding on eBay .

It could stay beached as part of the govenment budget MOD spending review cuts. Skye and the western highlands will then have a free reactor as part of their contribution to the latest naming of suitable sites for the next round of nuclear power stations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11605365 Sounds like this was a better option than having it sink in deeper water ????

And this is why the whole situation should be brought to the attention of The Plain English Campaign , preferably by M.V. Club(s) not by a individual. We all wish to understand and educate ourselves - not to ignore. High salary best legal brains will be used to draw up all these amd. However as I stated earlier - they do not wish anybody (even the police) to be able to understand by working through it all in a logical manner.

Regulation is not the law. Regulation is made under an all embracing enabling act and signed off by a minister. As it is not law - Regulation needs a test case in a court of law. Within regulations you will find definitions of certain words and yet other important words that should be defined are not so. Regulation is written by greek language students that are trained in law and how to write regulations such that the government agencies concerned , the police and members of the public do not understand the regulations. This iw the whole intention despite protestations of the Plain English Campaighn http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ There is a simple reason , they don't understand and they don't wish anybody to understand - that is until there is "Case Law" - the judge decides how the regulation should be interpreted such that it is read and understood how Parliament (the minister who signed it off) intended it to be read and understood - this is given in the summing up. Until then , no government body has a interpretation of a regulation that can be argued superior to that of a member of the public.

Land Rover Part No. NRC 9011 You will see them on US Ranger RSOV (6 lifting points) Some WMIK Look on the OTOKAR web site - very common on their mil. trucks Believe it or not - ISTR the 90" Dinky @ The Airborne Museum (winch fitted) - it has them fitted. Been around a few years ..

HD - as used on heavy wolf(s) in centre.

Reference. Armoured and Heavy Duty Vehicles of the RUC by David Dune. page 75 There are identical "points" on 96EN77 , described as Land Rover of the commanding officer of the 17/21st Lancers , further described as being the first to be fitted with VPK. ----------------- Noted later in the book that many photographs of such as Tangi have loops (recovery I would say) in the same position with access holes in the expanmet skirt (some having hinged cover flaps). ===== IMHO The front bumperettes are air-lift (the lifting points out of sight and do not take a correct sized shackle easy / if at all). It could be that they fitted them where recovery teams expected to find them in a hurry in a typical NI situation (and to match what tackle they used). However looking through the book the front loops often used are standard loops or the rear larger loops (as used on front of Pink Panther and possibly for same reason - weight). It could be that the added weight of VPK took the loading beyond the standard lifting points - so they produced these special HD points. You will find that the present heavy equiped Wolf versions - some have a similar extra HD front lifting point , obviously the standard Rover front loops or JATE ring bolts are unable to take the weight.

The site owner - probably obtains his source material from the US where it will have been cleared , British munition for Davey Crockett probably still subject to UK OSA.

Interesting site - will have to wait for the next wet afternoon to slowly read through it. I have done a bit of Gooooooogling around the words "Wee Gwen" with suitable words such as MOD & nuclear - strange - nothing turns up !!!