Series 2 aesthetics

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:50 pm

Think we're mixing terms up a bit. 'Empirical proof' is exactly what I offered. The word empirical means data based on observation rather than theory. I recounted what I observed under tougher solar conditions than will ever exist in UK or Europe - which means I have and can only offer empirical info. If you want a theoretical or technical explanation you'll have to do some of your excellent data mining. However, fifty pages of scientific LED board luminosity info would be of little use unless you had exactly comparable data for your LED bulbs and the OEM tungsten options, wouldn't it?

As a layman, I'd say a clue would be the massively great number of LEDs shining directly rearwards through the plastic lamp lens! :-)

Compare those to the tiny cluster of rear-facing LEDs on the bulbs you tried, abetted but not aided very much by a few more pointing sideways in the forlorn hope of garnering extra rearward lumens from a non-silvered 'reflector'.

As for money-back guarantees, if they are brighter they are brighter. Empirically, of course. If a customer isn't satisfied for good reason I expect the seller would refund if returned in as-new condition? Do Mangoletsi supply friction or pedal load data and performance-based guarantees? I suspect they just say 'Money back if not completely satisfied' although one's chances of returning a complex bit of mechanical kit as-new without mounting marks would be slim I expect?

The rear-end crash incidence conundrum is a whole 'nuther issue. You'd have to take a bigger leap of faith than me to argue brighter stop lamps make things worse than faint ones.

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:15 pm

David: although not strictly germane to the main argument that is going on here, there is one aspect of LED brake lights not so far mentioned which is directly relevant to safety . On my everyday car , CLK Mercedes , the centre spoiler mounted brake light is an LED cluster, whereas the wing lights are filaments . The centre light is well and truly shining at full brilliance instantaneously and a palpably observable time before the filament bulbs light up.I cannot say what the time difference is, but it might be 1/10 second. This represents 8 feet at 60 mph , which might just make the difference between a collision or not, and certainly should reduce any impact force

Post by **Heuer** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 6:32 pm

Yes, the fact that LED's come on "at the speed of light" is touted as one of their main attributes but you are still at the mercy of the reluctant hydraulic switch. Fitting a mechanical brake light switch speeds up illumination because you can adjust it so the slightest pressure on the pedal makes the lights go on. Fitting the very expensive LED brake/stop boards and relying on the hydraulic switch is somewhat pointless in my view if you want an early warning system. So response time can be improved dramatically for the cost of a switch and making a bracket, leaving the case for LED's down to brightness. I have been doing some bench tests using white LED's with the red Lucas lens and the results support what I found with QH bulbs and the LED replacement bulbs - reduced light output on par if not worse than tungsten. This means red LED's are essential in this application. I have been in contact with Classic Auto LED's to see if they will sell me just the stop/brake boards so I can do more testing.

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:11 pm

The thread is getting a bit convoluted and the ground keeps shifting, but as it's all in good humour maybe you can arrange a photocell test rig too? That would allow you to see if the faster illumination of LEDs balances the slower reaction time of an hydraulic switch?

The argument for LEDs is brightness, with speed as a bonus. Any speed bonus will be available regardless of switch type.

But if you are now accepting empirical added brightness as having been proven for the LED boards versus tungsten or LED bulbs (which it clearly is) then we can separately test for illumination speed objectively, rather than cherry-picking combinations of equipment that support one or other point. As you imply, a buyer principally seeking speed of illumination would be well-advised to try a mechanical switch first. But if still seeking speed, such a person would by definition get no further in his/her quest after that unless they then swapped to LEDs.

My guess is the time to reach a threshold brightness sufficient to trigger a photocell timer, would be slowest for hydraulic plus tungsten, fastest for mechanical plus LED and intermediate for hydraulic plus LED and mechanical plus tungsten. That's only an hypothesis though and not even empirical, let alone quantitative evidence.

I actually dislike hair-trigger stop lamp switches as they are annoying to follow and give too many false positives. The concept of slower-reacting hydraulic switches is theoretically valid (though the practical effects of marginal differences are open to question. In any serious stop liable to provoke a rear-end collision there is bound to be sufficient hydraulic pressure, sufficiently quickly, to fire up the lamps regardless.

The E-type rear-enders I've heard of were caused by driver inattention, with the hit car being stationary at a junction. Difficult to see how speed of illumination would help a stationary car, although significant extra brightness might. I think for the most part, whilst any incremental safety cadvance is potentially helpful, the fact that LEDs light more quickly is probably less significant for Series 1E-types than the fact that with LED boards the signals are seen in the first place, under conditions where the standard signals are near invisible. Being see much more brightly at all times probably trumps speed of illumination, which is only relevant sometimes?

I guess the ultimate for those of a nervous disposition would be to get rid of their collision-prone, blighted-benighted S1 and look for a kind sould who would offer their LED-lit S2 in generous exchange. I hate to see people worry needlessly so I am prepared to do such a trade upon request.

I know, I'm all heart.

Pete

elgrosso · Post by **elgrosso** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:50 am

Very nice indeed!
This one? http://lnk.nu/jag-lovers.org/1ckrz.php3

Post by **Heuer** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:03 pm

PeterCrespin wrote: The E-type rear-enders I've heard of were caused by driver inattention, with the hit car being stationary at a junction. Difficult to see how speed of illumination would help a stationary car, although significant extra brightness might. I think for the most part, whilst any incremental safety advance is potentially helpful, the fact that LEDs light more quickly is probably less significant for Series 1E-types than the fact that with LED boards the signals are seen in the first place, under conditions where the standard signals are near invisible. Being see much more brightly at all times probably trumps speed of illumination, which is only relevant sometimes? I guess the ultimate for those of a nervous disposition would be to get rid of their collision-prone, blighted-benighted S1 and look for a kind sould who would offer their LED-lit S2 in generous exchange. I hate to see people worry needlessly so I am prepared to do such a trade upon request.I know, I'm all heart.

You have just convinced me to stop my research into LED's. This comes on top of my conclusion they are a complete waste of money and are, in the main, ineffective. A standard 21W brake light produces 420 lumens and even matching that with current LED's is difficult, never mind exceeding it. They also bestow the car with a certain bling quality every time the brakes/indicators are applied. On Sunday we took our car on a 250 mile jaunt up to Whitby in glorious sunshine and the odometer clicked over to 50,000 miles in our ownership. At no time in the last 14 years have I been worried or aware we were going to be rear ended and most drivers only get close to look into the cabin. A quick blip of the throttle soon reminds them that keeping their distance is preferable to having their car full of petrol laden un-catalysed fumes. I also noticed on our little trip how few cars have LED lights anyway so we are in the majority. The way I was taught to drive included tapping the brake pedal rhythmically (to the tune of 'Stop, In the Name of Love' I seem to recall!) when stationary as the tail end of a queue, leaving the car in first gear, leaving one car length in front, keeping my eye on the mirror and being prepared gun the car out of trouble if it was about to descend on me. Still do it today. A mechanical switch is essential because of the failure rate of the hydraulic ones but unless you are going to add strobe lights and sirens to the circuit you are just wasting money. Besides I would feel ashamed my 50 year old classic car would be mistaken for a Toyota every time I braked. If you want LED's buy an F-Type.

Is America making you go safety soft Pete?

Mark Gordon · Post by **Mark Gordon** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:07 pm

"...safety soft Pete? " David, you obviously are not referring to Mr. Crespin nor have you ridden with him in an F-Type.

Post by **Heuer** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:20 pm

Mark - he never used to worry about what was behind him though! Bet he now has a bumper sticker which says "If you can't see my rear view mirrors I can't see you".

Anyway I have come up with a different solution I am going to explore: viewtopic.php?t=4845&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

elgrosso · Post by **elgrosso** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:20 pm

Jeff Cecil wrote:
elgrosso wrote:Very nice indeed!
This one? http://lnk.nu/jag-lovers.org/1ckrz.php3
Thanks, yes that is the link. And in relation to the discussion at hand, I will be using LED bulbs that are available for the MGB light sockets.

It looks really clean. I hope you'll finish it soon

Post by **Heuer** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:28 pm

Nice bit of lateral thinking Jeff! Shame they don't include a reversing light to get rid of the clutter around the plate or do you have another idea in mind for that?

neil4444 · Post by **neil4444** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:45 am

Well someone had to do it !

I'll get my coat.......

markc555 · Post by **markc555** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:34 pm

Jeff, I think I'd rather be without reversing lights than reflectors if only for safety reasons than aesthetics.

Talking of which, has anyone managed to successfully incorporate a fog lamp? That photoshop suggests to me that the S1 reversing lamp position could be used. I know that you only need one and that the centreline of the car is legally acceptable but would it interfere with the readability of the number plate?

Of course the best thing you could do to tidy up the rear of that car is lose the hideous boot rack

Cheers

Mark

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:40 am

The boot rack was removable and bought for a six-country European tours in my S3 which finished at Reims for the circuit reopening. sadly, our plan to fill it with 2-3 cases of Reims champagne fell apart because leaving for Calais on a Sunday meant all the champagne shops were shut :-(

Similarly, the pictured S2 trip through France was scheduled to have a last stop at Bernard Crespin's vineyard in the Loire region. The plan was to carry two or three cases of wine home in the boot and relegate non-essentials such as clothing, documents and passports to a bin bag bungeed to the rack while the plonk rode safely inside. In the end we managed to stuff lots of bottles inside the boot and cabin and clink our way onto the Chunnel train. I wouldn't mind another for a coast to coast trip here and they carry a tent very well. The car used to wag it's tail whenever I clipped it to the bootlid as it knew there was a nice long trip in store. Or was that me? Whatever ...

Pete

RogerM · Post by **RogerM** » Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:58 pm

Not sure what conclusions have been drawn from this thread. My S2 FHC has S1 exhaust, two S2 reversing lights and a straight number plate fitted slightly lower to miss the reversing lights.
The Elan rear lights and lens are readily available from Holden Vintage and Classic at ?198 and ?49 each resp. plus the dreaded VAT.

markc555 · Post by **markc555** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:35 am

Conclusions... there isn't a definitively right way :)

Most seem to agree that the standard S2 rear isn't quite right and there are a number of options to help improve it. The more I compare it to the S1 the more I find elements of that aren't quite right either. I think the light clusters should ideally be at the same high as the bumper rather than above or below? However Frua tried that before the S2 came along with pretty disastrous results...

Jaguar clearly took notice of it though as you can see some elements from Frua's effort (pair of reverse lamps, splayed exhaust, a sort of continuous bumper etc) in the S2 rear end.

I have the rear lights, stainless panel etc of mine dissembled at the moment trying different mock ups.

Personally I think the Lotus lights are a tidier solution allowing removal of the standard reversing lights and the fitment of a rectangular number plate. The little (red lens on the E Type) panel, where the Lotus reversing lens is fitted, is just lightly glued in and can be gently persuaded out, its not even a proper reflector so serves no function at all! I'm fettling some white trailer "marker" lights to fit in their place. Wiring will be simple, drill a hole in the lamp backplate and re-route the original wiring.
I'm erring toward leaving stainless panel off but a standard sized number plate doesn't look quite right to me. The numbers/letters look too high up, too close to the bumper. I'm going to try a slightly bigger, deeper reg plate.
Again personally, and I may well be in a minority of one here, I prefer the splayed exhaust finish, even with a long wide reg plate, so will probably leave that as is.
Finally I'm keen on finding a fog light solution. Jeff's photoshop suggests one could fit under the reg plate similar to the S1 reversing lamp so I'm going to fabricate a bracket and give that a try. I think the splayed exhausts would suit this location for a fog lamp better as well.

I'll post some pics when I'm done... but don't hold your breath.

Cheers

Mark

Peter Harrison · Post by **Peter Harrison** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:21 pm

Hi All, I think that the most promising addition to the discussion has been the Jeff Cecil "MGB" approach and I hope more photos are posted upon completion. I'm not sure I would actually have the courage to attack the rear of mine though. Perhaps the biggest challenge is the grow to love the rear of one's beloved. Regards, PeterH

Simon P · Post by **Simon P** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:05 pm

markc555 wrote:Most seem to agree that the standard S2 rear isn't quite right

That's as maybe, but as someone who owns a standard S2 with a standard rear end, I feel duty bound to say that some of us like our S2s looking like S2s: there are plenty enough S1s out there that we don't need to try to swell their numbers or pretend to be their newest 'BFFs'

Besides, the back end of an S3 is a bit of a smorgasbord but you don't see many S3 owners running around trying to stick twiddly bits off an S1 on the back

I say embrace your inner S2 and learn to love it for what it is :D. There are few enough cherished S2s compared to S1s & S3s out there as it is....

All of these things may well be ways to change an S2s rear end, but 'improve'? - that's subjective....

Simon

Gfhug · Post by **Gfhug** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:11 pm

So are you saying you didn't like my rear end? 8)

Yeah, I know we were more interested in the front that day!

Geoff

Simon P · Post by **Simon P** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:51 pm

Gfhug wrote:So are you saying you didn't like my rear end? 8)

Yeah, I know we were more interested in the front that day!

Geoff

:D Not at all. Everyone is perfectly entitled to do with their car as they wish (many might question my evangelical enthusiasm for Webasto roofs, for example :D ). I'm quite happy with that: all I'm saying that any changes make the back of the car 'different': not better or worse necessarily, just different...

I just think it's a bit of a shame that there are just two entries in the entire S2 Factory Fit thread, but seven pages taken up with how to 'improve' the 'aesthetics'

By comparison, the S1's got pages and pages dedicated to making sure it's preserved 'just so'. One day genuine factory original S2s will be rarer than OBL flat floors (if they aren't already).....

Post by **Heuer** » Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:59 pm

Simon P wrote: I just think it's a bit of a shame that there are just two entries in the entire S2 Factory Fit thread, but seven pages taken up with how to 'improve' the 'aesthetics' By comparison, the S1's got pages and pages dedicated to making sure it's preserved 'just so'...

Just waiting for some of you S2 owners to knuckle down, do the research and write it down!

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

The 'E' Type Forum

Series 2 aesthetics

#41

#42

#43

#44

#45

#46

#47

#48

#49

#50

#51

#52

#53

#54

#55

#56 Series 2 Aesthetics

#57

#58

#59

#60