antarmike
-
Posts
5,852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Articles
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by antarmike
-
-
Is it just me, or is Milweb playing up tonight?
-
-
Is there a max height of load, obviously to miss bridges but what is it ?Richard,
Never looked into max load height, for normal running we always used to measure height , making sure it was well under 16 ft as that is the standard clearance on bridges, cables etc or it was in my day.
Best I can do for you off the top of my head but no doubt someone will post a link for up to date regs.
I have put those links below, and an explanation....
road bridges have there height marked if they are under 16 ft so if not marked they must be 16ft or over so 16ft must be the standard height for major road bridges ,Max height is governered by motorway bridges as they are 16', ....Dougy
The Standard height for an unmarked bridge in the United Kingdom is not 16' 0" rather it is 16' 6" . (5.03m)
It should be possible to run under any unmarked bridge, or overhead cables provided your height does not exceed 16' 6".
Although most HGV websites advise, just to be on the safe side to allow for measuring inaccuracies, a maximum height of 16' 3" in the case of a decked trailer carrying an irregular shaped load, (16' 6" is normal recommended max height for a box bodied vehicle where the height can be more accurately determined).
H.S.E. documentation states that standard height of Motorway bridges is 5.1m (which I calculate translates to 16' 8 3/4")
http://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/vehicles.htm
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/bridges-and-structures/high-loads
All unmarked structures in Scotland have 16' 6" or greater clearance
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/prevention_of_bridge_strikes.pdf
This Same Height applies to whole of UK.
Bridges (according to Department of Transport recommendations, Chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) 2, section 7.) SHOULD be signed with a safety margin of 3" or 0.1m, so a bridge marked at 16' 0" will safely pass a 16' 0" vehicle. the actual clearance under a bridge signed at 16' 0" SHOULD be 16' 3".
A Bridge that is physically 16' 6" would therefore be signed at 16' 3", and this explains why Motorway bridges according to HSE are built to 16' 8 3/4" This being a guaranteed safe height of 16' 6" plus this 0.1m extra margin of safety, and why it is safe to run a 16' 6" box bodied vehicle under an unsigned bridge.
-
Last time I heard the Australian version of this Urban Myth, several crated Spitfires were hidden in a cave.... (probably guarded by a genie!!)
-
Unless "The Traffic Officer's Companion" is wrong again, then,Is there a max length for a trailer ?Max artic length is 16.5m (tractor and trailer) MAx trailer length is 12.2m from the kingpin (5th wheel)
STGO with rear steer can be longer. Have recently looked at turning room for a 26m o/a length.
Is there a max height of load, obviously to miss bridges but what is it ?
In the UK their is no height restriction but you may need to check your route very carefully.
Mike
Maximum length of 16.5m. is for semi trailer that is "not a low loader" or "is a low loader built before 1/4/91"
Maximum length for an articulated vehicle where the semi-trailer "is a low loader manufactured on or after 1/4/91 " Max length becomes 18m.
(Reg 7 Construction and use regulations 1986.)
-
New steel recently rose £100 per ton, another £95 per ton rise is coming in a few days, scrap is over £220 per ton around here....The pressure to scrap has never been higher....
I am afraid the future looks bleak for a number of Historic projects.....
-
Best thing for the bloody things all popping and farting and backfireing and not starting and then popping and farting and stopping for no reason only to then start striaght up and run perfectly and did i mention all the popping and farting?
And the backfire that empties the oil filled air filters all over the front of the cab and the windscreen,
-
Always on the look out for petrol spares if he has any parts he wishes to sell mate !
I hgave a Petrol lump that is destined for the Scrap, Do you want It? It is mostly there, No spring loaded throttle rod or Manifold. Got most of the rest of it. Including carbs, Wtaer pump, Starter, etc. Beat scrap price.
-
The "Like for Like" seems to be concerned with achieving an E mark, not fitting bulbs or lamps to a vehicle..
This from a Vehicle bulb sales site
"An E mark is a certification that the bulb conforms to European regulations to allow it to be used in the application it is designed for. Unfortunately one of the criteria for an E mark is that the bulb has to be the same type as the one it is replacing. E.G. filament for filament, led for led etc. As this is not the case here (led for filament) it cannot technically achieve an E mark. However the light output and colour of light is by far sufficient so will pass and MOT"
The "like for like" is in relation to the process of gaining an E mark, and is not related in any way to vehicle lighting regulations or to which lamps and bulbs can be fitted as replacement parts to older vehicles that do not require E marked Lighting components..
An LED bulb cannot gain an E mark if it is to replace a filament lamp.
An LED bulb without an E mark cannot legally be used as a replacement for a Filament bulb in a modern vehicle that requires E marked components in the lamps.
An LED bulb, with or without an E mark, can however be fitted to a vehicle that originally had filament lamps, but is old enough not to need E marked components in its lighting.
It is my take on this that since pre 1971 motor vehicles do not require E Markings, I personally cannot see why you cannot use a non E marked LED bulb in that application, since there is, quite simply, no requirement for lamps to be E marked on 1971 or earlier vehicles.
Now it seems that "Like for Like" relates to gaining an E mark, and not to any vehicle lighting regs, just for information, can anyone tie down further what the Rules for Gaining an E mark actually say.
I am totally of the opinion that LED lamps and bulbs can be fitted to WW2 vehicles. (but please refer to my earlier comments regarding indicators, that will require complete E marked units to be fitted since this is the only way around wattage requirements.)
For clarification, earlier posts has said that No unmarked components can be used, which seems to say you can't use (unmarked) N.O.S. Filament lamps and bulbs.
Don't want to put a damper on this but unless the side light, turn indicator, stop lights and turn indicator relays are DOT approved and have compliance marking they should not be used on the public highway, .....Steve
....Instant MOT failure and fine from the Police if they are not marked....I would challenge these statements, and say that it appears that not only may non E marked LED lamps be used but old stock, non E marked, Filament lamps, and bulbs can also be used on a pre 1971 motor vehicle, providing the resultant lamp is "clearly visible" and the indicator relay causes the direction indicators to flash at between 60 and 120 flashes per minute.
Comments welcomed.
-
What's wrong with keeping all your lights original and using a trailer board with as many LEDs / beacons as makes you feel safe fixed onto it, for when you feel vulnerable. When displaying or if plod doesn't like it just take it off...
Or tow a trailer with better lights like I do..:angel:
That is a logical way forward. LED lights have other advantages that this solution does not address. Some WW2 vehicle still running on their original Generators/ Dynamos struggle to keep the batteries charged when running with all the Lights on. Whereas headlamps draw the greatest current, replacing Filament lamps with LED's reduces the current drain, and improves the chances of Dynamo keeping up with the load.
-
If you are not worried about tread pattern, but want a high quality, premium tyre try Michelin XZL's I bought from L.W. Vass and they weren't that expensive.
-
Today 01:05 Mike
As far as I am concerned if you disrespect people by using terms such as barrack room solicitor (the term is barrack room lawyer anyway) I think in future the best thing is that we ignore each others posts.
Steve
Can you point me in the direction of that legislation? Without stating which piece of legislation contains this requirement, there is no way to substantiate whether this is a genuine requirement of UK law, whether it only relates to vehicles first use after a certain date or if it is just something from a "Barrack Room" Lawyer. Which legislation contains this requirement for a pre 1971 vehicle.Last edited today by Antarmike today at 00:0
Sorry I am confused.
I used the Term Barrack Room Lawyer, not because I wanted to insult you, but the "Like for Like" quote Or very similar appears on various other message boards/ discussion forums, and everyone seems to be looking at other forums and cutting and pasting from these. It did not appear to me last night that your post re "like for Like" was an original thought, but rather a re-hash of something from another forum, and the term was in relation to the countless times last night or saw the "like for Like" quote without anybody, anywhere attributing it to a particular piece of legislation. I don't need you to point out to me that the term is Barrack room Lawyer. You will see that I edited the term almost one hour before you saw fit to tell me.
-
Jack, your inbox is full and not accepting Private messages!
-
Right matey
1.
That was not a legal opinion did I say it was? if so where?
2. You continue to quote the 1989 act -an act that could not be used to give an opinion on LED lamps -as they were not a viable alternative at that time -high brightness LEDs did not exist commercially -so if the 1989 act is quoted it can only be done so on the basis that as it mentions only (filament) lamps with wattage between 15 and 36w for stop lights and indicators (necessary variation to allow twin or multiple lamps in paralel -do I have to explain Ohms Law to you or do you accept my expertise on that subject as previously you have infered that I don't know what I'm talking about with regard to electical instalation and design- the thread How many HMVF members does it take to change a light bulb - relates).
3.
Your point that lamps on vehicles prior to 1971 need only be clear -by your interperation that would allow some-one to used a parafin light with a wick or a candle or more seriously a single 10mA white LED which can be visible at up to a 1000m. In all legislation there is a glossary of terms and definations and that defines things in this case a lamp- and what its parameters are -normally and even prior to 1989 1971 or whatever, this is normally as BS standard - BS means British Standard not what you normally pen.
The sum up you like legislation ok advise the forum the legislation is that specifically makes LEDs legal on UK roads- if you can't it's time to shut up. I will go further you like playing lawyer you are not, you are some-one that has gotten hold of a legal book but lacks the necessary training-education to use it properly, everyone on HMVF may give an opinion even you, but you certainly do not have the right to behave the way you do in often sarcasiticly attempting to belittle others -while I been privilaged to be on the forum you have systematically annoyed numerous people you've even mananged to p*** **f the moderators on several occasions and to be honest the way you behave makes me wonder whether I should continue.
As I've said before I don't want to comment on your posts in future and as you like legal related matters to quote from the 1970s U.S legal drama - The Paper Chase,
"Mr **** here is a shroud as far as I am concerned you don't exist"
Steve
That was not a legal opinion did I say it was? if so where?Don't want to put a damper on this but unless the side light, turn indicator, stop lights and turn indicator relays are DOT approved and have compliance marking they should not be used on the public highway, -even though they are better than filament lamps.Steve
What is it then? You say LED lights should not be used, even though they are better. Why should they not be used? Surely if you suggest that we shouldn't use them the only reason is surely legal, or am I missing something?
The decency laws in the country say that I must keep my genitals covered in public. When the legislation was drawn up there was no Nylon, or other synthetics. There was Linen, cotton, wool etc, but not polyester.
The requirement of the law is that I cover myself, it does not say what with. I can wear Polyester underpants, and a polyester suit to achieve this. It matters not that these materials did not exist at the time the legislation was drawn up, I satisfy the legislation provided my privates aren't hanging out, even though the technology I use to achieve it did not exist at the time the legislation was enacted.
Likewise the only requirement for Front and rear position lamps is that they are clearly visible. It does not matter what technology use to achieve it providing I show a "clearly visible" light.
Re Stop lamps indicators, If a Stop lamp is fitted to a pre 1971 Motor vehicle there is no requirement as to Wattage, If a Stop lamp is E marked there is no wattage requirement.
The wattage requirement of between 15 and 36watts only applies to Stop lamps fitted to vehicles First used after after 1. 1. 1971 which are not E marked.
This means an LED bulb can probably be fitted inside an existing lamp on a pre 1971 vehicle.
The problem , Which I myself highlighted, is with Indicators. If the Unit is not E marked then Wattage must be between 15 and 36 Watts.
You may not be able to fit LED bulbs into unmarked units, but you canstill fit complete lamps which are E marked , using LED technology.
In all legislation there is a glossary of terms and definations and that defines things in this case a lamp- and what its parameters are -The interpretation of the act is here.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/3/made
Unless I am missing something it does not define what a lamp is, It does not mention Bulb in the interpretation, It does not mention Filament" in the interpretation so sorry, the interpretation of the act is of no use in this argument.
I will go further you like playing lawyer you are not, you are some-one that has gotten hold of a legal book but lacks the necessary training-education to use it properly,
In response to your previous query- In 2003 the UK govt. (disprooving the right wing British press ranting that HMG cowtow to EU legislation) broke with the EU directive (EMC Directive 89/336/EEC) which allowed CE marked retro-fit lighting components to be fitted to vehicles in use in the UK- this however has no effect on vehicles built to Unified Type Approval hence many vehicles on UK roads have quite legally LED indicators, the replacement directive Automotive Directive 95/54/EC proscribes use of any retro-fit or aftermarket alterations to vehicles that are not (in this case of lamps) E marked -including LED lamps
.........
additional retro-fits must conform to the requirement at the time they were fitted and any lamps can only be like for like so lamps fitted to vehicles of 1940-50-60 vintage can only use a similar filament lamp .
Pot calling the Kettle Black?
Antarmike.......additional retro-fits must conform to the requirement at the time they were fitted and any lamps can only be like for like so lamps fitted to vehicles of 1940-50-60 vintage can only use a similar filament lamp as originally fitted .
Can you point me in the direction of that legislation? Without stating which piece of legislation contains this requirement, there is no way to substantiate whether this is a genuine requirement of UK law, whether it only relates to vehicles first use after a certain date or if it is just something from a "Barrack Room" Lawyer. Which legislation contains this requirement for a pre 1971 vehicle?
I do not feel that I have to provide proof of legislation that says LED lamps can be used, (for the same reason I do not have to prove I can wear Polyester to cover my privates). Rather I believe the need to provide proof is on you to justify your "like for Like" remark and to say what legislation that comes from. I repeat I may be wrong. I have said I am unfamiliar with this legislation, I want to check it out and see whether it exists, whether there are exemptions for vehicles of a certain age etc. If I am wrong I will say so, but please someone , which legislation does this come from?
Thought for the day , "Are you suggesting that Steam engines built with Paraffin lamps that now have electric lamps are illegal. Are you suggesting that Vintage/ veteran Cars built with Carbide headlamps are illegal if run now with Electric Lights?"
It is a pity that reasoned argument, and analysis of the law has degraded to Personal insult and abuse. You have had a chance to state the legislation this comes from. If you had been able to do that that might have been the end of it. You have failed to do that and are now just resorting to name calling, That is a pity.
-
Mike
After reading your post no#23 my response will be very brief -I find your comment as the forums self appointed legal expert both offensive and vexatious -that's a legal term meaning some-one that uses mendacious, time wasting and unnecessarily convoluted arguments.
As far as I am concerned if you disrespect people by using terms such as barrack room solicitor (the term is barrack room lawyer anyway) I think in future the best thing is that we ignore each others posts.
Steve
That's fine, but you were the first person to put an unsupported legal opinion on this thread,(ref your post #10) I am only trying to examine your claim and see whether it holds up. I cannot see that it does.
When I give my views as to a legal position, I always try to include reference to the legislation to which I refer. This enables others to go off and study the legislation and to reach an opinion. You have offered a viewpoint, claiming it to be the law, but despite being asked to identify the legislation to which you referred, you are unable or unwilling to do so.
I will leave this discussion here and let others read the Vehicle lighting Regulations 1989, and see whether they agree with my viewpoint. It is a pity you are unwilling to cite the legislation which says replacements must be "like for like", because you have made a claim that people cannot , similarly, go off and check. Mike
-
Antarmike
In response to your previous query- In 2003 the UK govt. (disprooving the right wing British press ranting that HMG cowtow to EU legislation) broke with the EU directive (EMC Directive 89/336/EEC) which allowed CE marked retro-fit lighting components to be fitted to vehicles in use in the UK- this however has no effect on vehicles built to Unified Type Approval hence many vehicles on UK roads have quite legally LED indicators, the replacement directive Automotive Directive 95/54/EC proscribes use of any retro-fit or aftermarket alterations to vehicles that are not (in this case of lamps) E marked -including LED lamps.
When new legislation is enacted, then previous legislation is taken off the books. Any legislation that was in force in 1945 has long since been taken off the staute books, A ww2 Vehicle has to comply with current lighting regs, The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989,
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made)
The 1989 Regulations are the only legislation relating to lights and they exempt vehicles of certain ages from complying with some or other of the clauses, For a pre 1971 vehicle the only requirement relating to side lights etc is that they be "clearly visible. A pre 1971 vehicle is exempt from needing E mark.
Provided the requirement to be "clearly visible" is met, I cannot see any other Motor vehicle or lighting legislation that relates to a pre 1971 vehicle, Pre 1971 vehicles do not need E marks, Conformity marks or even kite marks. They merely have to be clearly visible, to comply with Lighting regs. LED lights are clearly visible or they would not be allowed in modern applications.
I cannot see the relevance of Electromagnetic Compatibilty legislation to which you refer, Legislation whose primary requirement is protection of the electromagnetic spectrum rather then safety of the equipment.
Particularly since "The Directive requires that products must not emit unwanted electromagnetic pollution (interference) and must be immune to a normal level of interference. Compliance with these requirements is usually demonstrated by testing to harmonized standards but testing is not mandatory and a manufacturer may choose provide a technical assessment for compliance as an alternative."
With regard to the Automotive Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive 95/54/EC This has nothing to do with the quality of the light, the output, visibility etcetera. of either complete lamps or replacement LED bulbs. (This is one of a number of directives which are intended to promote free trade throughout the European Union and the wider EEA). It has to do with Electromagnetic emmisions, and seeing as the lamps have no direct control of the vehicle, the standard they have to be tested to is very simple. "Products that have direct control of the vehicles must not emit EMC emissions above the limits and must be immune to interference levels stated in the directive. Products without direct control only have to meet the emission requirements."
Whilst this legislation says that any electronic equipment supplied for fitment to a vehicle must be E-Marked, (in repect of electromagnetic emmisions only) it does not say what vehicles they can or can't be fitted to.
AntarmikeA traffic police officer will be well aware of the vehicles likely to be legally fitted with LEDs -last years Renault probably - a 25 year old boy racer Golf probably not.
Traffic police will not be enforcing Electromagnetic radiation protection legislation, so they won't be looking for the E mark associated with EMC will they? In the UK, the enforcing authority is the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) which is an agency of the Department for Transport.
The traffic Police will not be looking for any other E marks on lighting on Pre 1971 vehicles, since they will know of the exemption given to these vehicles in the in the 1989 Lighting regs.
How do you see Traffic Police being involved with a 1945 vehicle? Which particular legislation do you feel they will be enforcing?
Whether these are E marked for EMC i don't know but they are openly being sold as automotive bulbs.
http://www.autobulbsdirect.co.uk/led-car-bulbs/
http://www.norbsa02.freeuk.com/goffyleds.htm
http://www.ringautomotive.co.uk/product_list.asp?cat1=1&cat2=49&cat3=6
Ring Automotive are well known and respectable, I would have thought their LED Vehicle bulbs are E marked.
AntarmikeAs far as I am aware no current LED suppliers have represented to an appropriate EMC testing facility to obtain a E mark as required by Vehicle Certification Agency - if wrong I will be very pleased to know as I am an enthusiast of anything that makes driving safer which LEDs obviously do.
Plenty of E marked LED auto bulbs here, so they do exist. (although which directive they comply with is not clear!)
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/e--marked-led-bulb.html
Ring specifically state their DRL LED lamps are E marked.
http://www.ringautomotive.co.uk/product_list.asp?cat1=1&cat2=8&cat3=207
You again say
Antarmike.......additional retro-fits must conform to the requirement at the time they were fitted and any lamps can only be like for like so lamps fitted to vehicles of 1940-50-60 vintage can only use a similar filament lamp as originally fitted .
Can you point me in the direction of that legislation? Without stating which piece of legislation contains this requirement, there is no way to substantiate whether this is a genuine requirement of UK law, whether it only relates to vehicles first use after a certain date or if it is just something from a "Barrack Room" Lawyer. Which legislation contains this requirement for a pre 1971 vehicle?
Sorry I remain unconvinced, I still think you are wrong. I am happy to admit a gap in my knowledge, if someone can show I am wrong. I am completely unfamiliar with the "like for Like" requirement, so please someone identify the legislation so I can check it out. Thanks Mike.
-
Are the Matador rims 10"?
Yes, (well they should be)
-
"It was a wonderful aircraft to fly, it was never done but there are many accounts by test pilots etc, in which they say they just wished they had clearance to do a barrel roll because everyone thought it was possible."
Alex Henshaw barrel rolled lancs on more than one occasion , it was a kind of party piece of his to do so.... he stated that a pair of gloves left on top of the dash in the cockpit would gently rise to the top of the windscreen before just as gently landing back where they came from :-)
His other trick was to do a roll with an interested observer standing between and just behind both seats .... Alex says the mans feet would gentley leave the ground as the roll progresed and again touch the floor as he leveled out again.
Speaking to an ex Lanc pilot of some repute a few years ago he also claimed to have performed a kind of roll while taking violent evasive action from night fighters.... not to mention getting told off for bringing a bomb back to base ..... stuck in his wing where it had lodged after being dropped by one of the stream above .:wow:
He also flew Lanc 2's fitted with radial engines ... said they climbed as hard as they could all the way to the target and never achieved half the hight of the merlin engined Lancs.... a truly brave man who compleated 2 tours and a short tour as an instructor where he asked to be put back on op's because he felt safer with jerry shooting at him than he did with some of his pupils
Nice for the "irk" who had to clean up the Elsan!
-
Think also of applying to the court of protection. To give power of attorney, the person giving it(the donor) has to be seen to be able to know what he or she is giving away. If Dementia has progressed too far, then it may be decided that the donor isn't "with it" enough to know or understand what they are giving away, and then you will have to apply to" the court of Protection" and get them to make decisions regarding property, investments etc. The Court of Protection can make these decisions themselves, or appoint a deputy, (who in effect then has Power of Attorney.)
It is a difficult subject, but the important question is how far progressed is the dementia?, The sufferer is the person giving Power of attorney to someone else. They have to be able to be seen capable of knowing exactly what they are giving away, if they can't, then it is the "Court of Protection" route you need to follow.
-
What happened to restoring vehicles as they would of been?
Might as well paint a white star on the bonnet of a Land Rover & called it a Willy's Jeep :nut:
My Matador (1953) was built without indicators. I ran it for one year like that before I decided I just had to retro-fit indicators. It did not require to have them fitted but I chose to.
Externally it will be virtually impossible to see that a modified vehicle has LED bulbs, inside the existing lamps, behind the lenses. Fitting complete units will, admittedly, be more obtrusive. (Which is why, I personally would go the route of replacement bulbs within existing lamps.)
The problem with Filament lights is that they take time to reach full intensity, whereas LED are virtually instantaneous.
Tests have shown that Filament lights lag 0.2 seconds behind LED's, and for a vehicle approaching from the rear at 70 MPH this extra time before the driver sees the Brake lights represents 14 Feet travelled along the road, where he could have been reacting and braking.
If a person wants the best chance of not being stuffed into the back of then fitting LED's are the way forward.
Other benefits are that filament indicator bulbs have a life expectancy of 15 hours but LED's promise 1000's of hours service.
LED are more vibration resistant, and with WW2 vehicles with rudimentary leaf springs, and often no dampers, this is reliability that is much needed to improve safety.
I hope that if you get rear end shunted by an Artic, you feel it was worth leaving in the Filament lamps. A vehicle that has ended up six foot shorter isn't very authentic either.....
This is the "Historic Military vehicle forum" and is open to everyone with an interest in historic Military vehicle, which can mean running them in civilian guise, running them as converted in service, running them as converted early on after release, or showing them as barn finds. It may mean modifications made because spares are no longer available, and occasionally be legislation requires modification (such as underun bars on certain vehicles)
There is no reason to believe that vehicles have to be restored to their original condition, and that is the only way to go.
-
You are probably quite right about pre 1960s or whatever date vehicles not requiring a DOT stamp as such however I am fairly certain, although it is now 30years since I had anything to do with lighting regulations that the "law" requires all lamps originally fitted with a filament lamp to have a filament lamp- and I would think that pre-dates the regulations you quote,ie you cannot retro-fit a carbide or wick or an xeon lamp (why any would do this the law doesn't say -it only proscribes it) -as LEDs were first developed in 1960s and were first commercially available about 1970 (allbeit in very low power red applications) and although superficially a LED does have a wire -it is not a filament therefore cannot be retro fitted in place of a filament lamp.
Whether the police would prosecute or fix penalty an older vehicle is debatable -it would have to await a legal case which I am sure there hasn't been one so it is again a case of none legal oppinion (and I am only pointing out a possible problem) -however even allowing for specialist insurance companies any opportunity for a company to void cover is almost always taken with alacricty -especially if the other parties insurer get wind of any "out of the ordinary modification" notifified or not.
Steve
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made
Lighting regs make no requirement that filament lamps must only be replaced with filament lamps, (unless I have missed it. Unless you can point to specific legislation I feel that you are wrong in your recollections, because I cannot find any prohibition of changing Filament to LED lamps
all I can find re changeing filament lamps is this clause, applying to much later vehicles
Filament lamps
14.—(1) Where a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st April 1986 or any trailer manufactured on or after 1st October 1985 is equipped with any lamp of a type that is required by any Schedule to these Regulations to be marked with an approval mark, no filament lamp other than a filament lamp referred to in the Designation of Approval Marks Regulations in–
(a)regulation 4 and Schedule 2, items 2 or 2A, 8, 20, 37 or 37A; or
(b)regulation 5 and Schedule 4, item 18,
shall be fitted to any such lamp.
(2) Where any pedal cycle manufactured on or after 1st October 1990 is equipped with any lamp that is required by any Schedule to these Regulations to be marked with a British Standard mark, no filament lamp other than a filament lamp marked with the marking indicated in the British Standard specification for Filament Lamps for Cycles published by the British Standards Institution under the reference 6873: 1988 namely “B.S. 6873” shall be fitted to any such lamp.
-
Don't want to put a damper on this but unless the side light, turn indicator, stop lights and turn indicator relays are DOT approved and have compliance marking they should not be used on the public highway, -even though they are better than filament lamps.
Steve
Not true.
It depends on age of vehicle. WW2 vehicles (THE SUBJECT OF THIS ENQUIRY) There is no requirement for markings on lamps on any WW2 vehicle.
For Front and rear position lamps the major ruling date is manufactured on or after 1.1.7 (front), 1.1.74 (rear) and for indicators the date is basically 1.4.86.
I can't be arsed to give dates for every vehicle trailer etc, but if you are interested you need Reg 18 schedules 1, 2, 7 & 10 Road vehicle lighting regs 1989.
Before these dates there does not appear to be any requirement for approval mark or even a kite mark, so don't be put off by legislation, it is probably quite legal to put LED lights on vehicles built or used before these dates provided "they are plainly visible from a reasonable distance" which is the only requirement (although regs re stop lights state wattage must be between 15 and 36 Watts, but only for vehicles fisrt use 1.1.1971, and any indicator lamp not bearing an approval mark must also be 15 to 36 W). This relating to a filament lamp so not sure how you determine output from LED which have a far higher efficiency)
For trailer, Motor cycles, combinations pedal cycles and other than motor vehicles, refer to regs, as some classes have different dates.
The point about the need to agree changes with insurers is however quite valid.
Good point Steve.Forgot about that one!
Instant MOT failure and fine from the Police if they are not marked.
Not to mention you probably wouldn't be insured in an accident either.
Earlier vehicles do not need approval marks, or kite marks to pass an MOT. Having unmarked lights on a vehicle of an age that does not need them to be marked is not an offence, so again, you can't be fined. Your insurance is valid with no compliance markings if the age of your vehicle does not require lamps to be marked.
-
Most Matadors were built without Radiator badges. Most radiators were undrilled.
Nearly all you see have been retro-fitted by civvy owners trying to dress up the Matador.
Consequently most sit on the surface. It is a refreshing change when you do see a genuine Matador, without Badge, and with no drillings. I still have an undrilled Cast Iron radiator, at the moment.
-
Hi Mike as you say primer to bare substrate but if a shot blasting not availible a partial rub back- possibly leaving old layers then blast on some primer . We will never know. We looked after 27 sqn here at leuchars for 5 years befotre they moved to Englandshire, Their vehicles always left us in standard RAF markings . They then fitted the blue /red Tac plates themselves although we used to make them up for them in workshops. But like you piccies of them displaying the roundal are like rocking horse poo ! Mind how often do yopu see Regt lads with there cap badge over the left ear instead of the left eye.
The official colour for the Rapier launcher was Dk green & Dk Earth but again most piccies show green and black.
TTFN TED
The problem with the grey being an undercoat for the green, is that there is a layer of red oxide between the Two of them!
Milweb Access problem
in MV Chatter
Posted
Just started working for me again.