|
|
|
|
|
That thought has crossed my mind, Chris, however........ The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 Windscreen wipers and washers 34.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), every vehicle fitted with a windscreen shall, unless the driver can obtain an adequate view to the front of the vehicle without looking through the windscreen, be fitted with one or more efficient automatic windscreen wipers capable of clearing the windscreen so that the driver has an adequate view of the road in front of both sides of the vehicle and to the front of the vehicle. Might just be worth checking what the equivalent regs said when the Elan was built - the 1986 regs won't have had retrospective effect!  MOT regs take into account age of vehicle. For example, I can fit a hydraulic handbrake as the car is pre 1968. The rules also allow for parts fitted by manufacturers at the time. So, for example, I don't require a reversing light and only need one rear view mirror. Elans weren't fitted with manual wipers so are not allowed, as I understand the rules. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the windscreen is removable, that will satisfy the requirement as the drive does not need to see through a wet screen. Screen will be bonded in. However, if I went down that route and subsequently fitted a screen it would then not comply with the construction and use regs so wouldn't be UK road legal. The car must be UK road legal, that is the challenge :-) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Might just be worth checking what the equivalent regs said when the Elan was built - the 1986 regs won't have had retrospective effect! MOT regs take into account age of vehicle. For example, I can fit a hydraulic handbrake as the car is pre 1968. The rules also allow for parts fitted by manufacturers at the time. So, for example, I don't require a reversing light and only need one rear view mirror. Elans weren't fitted with manual wipers so are not allowed, as I understand the rules. Are you sure about the hydraulic handbrake?? I'm fairly (but not completely) sure Handbrakes have to be mechanical whatever the age. |
| |
|
|
mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 3,058 
Club RR Member Number: 77
|
|
|
|
MOT regs take into account age of vehicle. For example, I can fit a hydraulic handbrake as the car is pre 1968. The rules also allow for parts fitted by manufacturers at the time. So, for example, I don't require a reversing light and only need one rear view mirror. Elans weren't fitted with manual wipers so are not allowed, as I understand the rules. Are you sure about the hydraulic handbrake?? I'm fairly (but not completely) sure Handbrakes have to be mechanical whatever the age. yup, states in the MOT inspection manual that vehicles after 1968 can have a hydraulic handbrake as well, but it must not be the sole means of a parking brake  Just one of the many wierd and wonderful foibbles of the test  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^^ Interpretation - To me that just says that a post 68 car can have one as an addition. It does not say - A Pre 68 car can have a Hydraulic H/brake as it's sole means as a parking brake.
|
| |
96 E320 W210 Wafter - on 18" split Mono's - Sold :-(
10 Kia Ceed Sportwagon - Our new daily
03 Import Forester STi - Sold
98 W140 CL500 AMG - Brutal weekend bruiser! Sold :-(
99 E240 S210 Barge - Now sold
02 Accord 2.0SE - wife's old daily - gone in PX
88 P100 2.9efi Custom - Sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^^ Interpretation - To me that just says that a post 68 car can have one as an addition. It does not say - A Pre 68 car can have a Hydraulic H/brake as it's sole means as a parking brake. 3.1 Parking brake control Hydraulic parking brakes as a sole means of operation are not acceptable on vehicles first used on or after 1 January 1968. However, they may be used to assist the application or release of a mechanical brake. Interpretation - If not acceptable on vehicles used on or after 1/1/68 then, by definition, they must be OK on earlier cars. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Last Edit: Jul 6, 2016 18:14:04 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
fer4l
Posted a lot
Testing
Posts: 1,497
Club RR Member Number: 73
|
|
|
|
|
Looking good!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Last Edit: Jul 7, 2016 21:33:21 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although not finished (more filling and sanding) I had to see if it fitted. Fortunately it does. Three more pieces to make.   |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Late night musings :-)  |
| |
|
|
|
|
mattiwagon
Part of things
Just got a work truck
Posts: 445
|
|
|
|
|
Liking the twin clamshell idea
|
| |
If they cant be nice f**k em!
84 low t25 panel 1.9td beige and rust combo
97 Goped Bigfoot G260RC with clutch conversion
97 Impreza turbo 2000 builders wagon 76k sold
04 Fabia vRs 50mpg pocket rocket
04 battered T5 pickup in blue!
Chainsaws lotsa Chainsaws
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2016 18:54:19 GMT
|
Liking the twin clamshell idea Thanks. The front clam would make maintenance a lot easier and the car a fair bit lighter. The rear clam wouldn't make much difference weightwise as most of it is already carbon and would be complicated as the boot will be full of stuff, so it would be for posing value only :-) |
| |
|
|
mattiwagon
Part of things
Just got a work truck
Posts: 445
|
|
Jul 10, 2016 19:00:42 GMT
|
Fine, still like it, lol
|
| |
If they cant be nice f**k em!
84 low t25 panel 1.9td beige and rust combo
97 Goped Bigfoot G260RC with clutch conversion
97 Impreza turbo 2000 builders wagon 76k sold
04 Fabia vRs 50mpg pocket rocket
04 battered T5 pickup in blue!
Chainsaws lotsa Chainsaws
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2016 19:07:13 GMT
|
Made the sides of the rear panel today. Up until now I have been using the standard resin hardener, as this gives me 90 minutes pot life. However, it takes 30 hours to cure, slowing down part fabrication. As I have got better at laying up I have started to use the rapid hardener. This only has around 15 minutes pot life but cures in around 6 hours, meaning that multiple parts can be made in a day :-) To that end I prepared to make the two side sections of the rear panel. To speed things up even more I used preformed bags so that I only have to seal one end rather than making bags from a roll of bagging film. Almost a disaster. I couldn't get a vacuum. The pump was pulling air but not enough to squeeze the carbon. Couldn't find any leaks so decided to put another bag around the existing one and attach my workshop vacuum. This worked, it added a little squeeze, allowing the main pump to do its job, just. The vacuum pump was also making funny noises so I though that it was on its way out. Great, it is only a couple of months old, so I was already working out what I was going to say to Easy Composites tomorrow.  I had enough of the proper film to make a bag for the second panel so this I did. Took my time making sure it was airtight and it worked a treat! I guess a combination of thin plastic and not a perfect airtight bag caused the problems with the first panel. Removed the first panel from the mould and it seems OK, but I will reserve judgement until I can compare it's weight with the second panel.  |
| |
Last Edit: Jul 10, 2016 19:35:55 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 14:51:50 GMT
|
Removed second side panel from its mould today (removed the first one on Sunday) after another struggle as I had to cut the mould into three pieces (as I did on the first mould). Photo shows the undersides of the panels. The second, better vacuumed, panel is, in their existing unfinished states, 65gms lighter than the compromised panel, which is pretty good as they are still to be trimmed and cleaned so I will live with that and not make another one. They look pretty rubbish at the moment, but they will scrub up well :-)  |
| |
Last Edit: Jul 12, 2016 14:53:04 GMT by nalesutol
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 12:29:11 GMT
|
|
Is it mostly the same as fibreglassing except for the vacuum bags?
|
| |
|
|
