Page 26 of 27

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:37 pm
by Carledo
That sidelight, while a great idea, is definitely contrary to construction and use regs which state that a side marker light may not be less than a certain distance from the edge of the car Since this is why standard Dollies have their sidelights and indicators the illogical way round and Tony's sidelights are inboard of that, they are definitely in contravention.
Since I have my stock sidelights and indicators the logical but wrong way round, I also am in contravention of the regs, so I am not criticising, just saying for information!
I wanted to do the same indicator treatment on my Sprint and would have put the sidelights in the outer headlamp. The ridiculous price of Escort mkI indicator lights put me off the idea!

Steve

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:39 pm
by lazeruspete
Carledo wrote: is definitely contrary to construction and use regs which state that a side marker light may not be less than a certain distance from the edge of the car
would that be an MOT thing?

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:58 pm
by shaunroche
lazeruspete wrote:
Carledo wrote: is definitely contrary to construction and use regs which state that a side marker light may not be less than a certain distance from the edge of the car
would that be an MOT thing?
The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

Section 18b I think.....http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989 ... on/18/made

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:04 pm
by Carledo
lazeruspete wrote:
Carledo wrote: is definitely contrary to construction and use regs which state that a side marker light may not be less than a certain distance from the edge of the car
would that be an MOT thing?
I don't think it's an MOT issue, the MOT regs are more like, is it there?, is it working? is it bright enough? Are they matching side to side?
Construction and use is a legal thing and there is a book 10 times as thick as the MOT manual governing virtually every detail of what you can and can't do with a car. There are rules for how low headlamps can be and how bright reverse lights can be (the rally trick of using a spotlight is definitely a no-no) Numberplates, as in the thread in the main section lately, are also covered by these regs. They are what plod cites when you get to court! I don't think many policemen carry a tape measure these days, but if just ONE does, he's the one i'll get stopped by! So I try to keep my cars inside the rules!

Steve

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:53 pm
by Tony Burd
Been MOT'd twice now at different stations. 1st year got 2 advisories,no bumpers and numberplate on bonnet, 2nd year nothing. It probably has lots of things that are subject to the rule book but common sense seems to rule with my local mot testers.

Not been pulled yet by the boys in blue, I think they're more interested on the young lads with Polos slammed to the floor with banded wheels at 45 degrees. :lol:

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:05 pm
by Tony Burd
Finally got round to fitting the Janspeed exhaust today.

Image
Image
Image
Image

Sounds lovely, no more droning & it doesn't bang against the bodywork.:D

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 9:10 pm
by Flyfisherman
Tony Burd wrote:Sounds lovely, no more droning & it doesn't bang against the bodywork.:D
Tony

Any chance of a sound track

Paul

Hmm

Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:27 pm
by sprint95m
I think that your sidelights must be road legal Tony
because didn't cars come with that arrangement from new, e.g. the BMW 3 series from the 80s?
What is the point of manufacturers providing headlamps with the sidelight facility (pilot hole) if not?

Are sidelights actually needed, legally speaking that is?
My next door neighbour had a Kawasaki 750 sports bike which just had dip and main.



Anyhow, your car looks smart.



Ian.

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:34 pm
by Tony Burd
Flyfisherman wrote:
Tony Burd wrote:Sounds lovely, no more droning & it doesn't bang against the bodywork.:D
Tony

Any chance of a sound track

Paul
I'll see what I can do, my daughter has a GoPro camera, maybe I could strap it to the exhaust.

Re: Hmm

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:35 pm
by Tony Burd
sprint95m wrote:I think that your sidelights must be road legal Tony
because didn't cars come with that arrangement from new, e.g. the BMW 3 series from the 80s?
What is the point of manufacturers providing headlamps with the sidelight facility (pilot hole) if not?

Are sidelights actually needed, legally speaking that is?
My next door neighbour had a Kawasaki 750 sports bike which just had dip and main.



Anyhow, your car looks smart.



Ian.
Thanks Ian, I think they are OK too.

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:13 pm
by Tony Burd
Flyfisherman wrote:
Tony Burd wrote:Sounds lovely, no more droning & it doesn't bang against the bodywork.:D
Tony

Any chance of a sound track

Paul
Here you go Paul, not the best I'm afraid the camera was rattling a bit, but you get the idea.

https://youtu.be/5HOWpKQ7Jt0

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:41 pm
by GTS290N
Awesome!
Do the same again without the camera rattle and you could be making some cash from youtube!

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:59 pm
by zombeh
On the sidelights thing, C&U specifies a maximum distance from the sides of the car but not a minimum. The maximum distance for a dolly (it's age related) is 510mm so pretty much put them wherever you like.

Exhaust looks and sounds nice :)

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:48 pm
by Tony Burd
All the photos are back on this thread, well the ones I can edit.

Re: MSO 662P

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:03 am
by Toledo Man
I've just been through the entire thread and there were only a handful of Photobucket links that needed fixing so it is all sorted.