craig1410
|
 posted on 21/3/05 at 12:20 AM |
|
|
GTS small black headlamps - Fitted!
Hi,
There has been some talk about GTS headlamps lately on the forum and I thought some of you might appreciate seeing how I have gone about fitting mine
to my McSorley 7+4. Click
here.
Time will tell whether the simple welded bracket will survive fatigue or not but it couldn't be simpler as designs go. All you need is a bit of
16swg 1" square section 6 inches long for each bracket (I'm sure you'll be able to find some somewhere...) It also has the handy
side effect of positioning the lights at (as far I can tell) the right place for SVA regs. The edges of the square section have a sufficient radius
(about 8mm in fact) so should pass exterior projections regs too.
Anyone able to see any flies in the ointment? (I'll regret asking that I bet...)
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
|
|
niceperson709
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 05:51 AM |
|
|
Looks good mate but maybe smaller indicators would look better 
best wishes
Iain
Best wishes IAIN
life is not the rehearsal , it's the show so don't sit there thinking about it DO IT NOW
http://iainseven.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
Mix
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 07:44 AM |
|
|
Don't know where you get your square section from but mine has corner radii of about 2.5mm.
Would need to check if that would be OK for SVA.
I like the idea though, but round section may be more appropriate IMO
Mick
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
Hi,
Yes the indicators are a bit large for the headlamps I suppose but the indicator housings which GTS supply are designed for this size of indicator so
there's not really much choice. Anyway, I'm more concerned with function than form at present until I get the car through SVA and in this
regard the larger indicators should help visibility from some of the extreme angles which SVA requires.
On the square versus round debate, I have two types of square section, one has huge radii (something like 10mm) but the one I have used is about 5mm.
It is certainly much larger than 2.5mm radius as I made myself a little tool by drilling a 5mm hole (ie. 5mm diameter = 2.5mm radius) in a piece of
steel and the radius is much larger than that.
Thanks for the comments,
Craig.
|
|
|
ned
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 09:50 AM |
|
|
Craig,
I did mine exactly the same way, expect I used some round tbe i had kicking about. I flattened one end in the vice and bent it level and drilled a
hole to mount the light on, but it sits at approx 45 degrees to the chassis like yours does..
Looking more closely at your pics, I've mounted mine further back, inline with my shocks and I'm using seperate bike style inidcators as
well.
Ned.
[Edited on 21/3/05 by ned]
beware, I've got yellow skin
|
|
|
Mix
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 10:38 AM |
|
|
10mm corner radii = 5mm flat surface per side 
Wierd
Mick
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 10:52 AM |
|
|
I'm using oval wishbone tubing to do the same but further back. I've not got any lamps for it yet so I haven't put the top bracket
plates on. Do the small headlamps dip to the left or straight down like bike lamps? They can still be E marked even if they are not for use on a car.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 12:35 PM |
|
|
Sorry Mick, confusion reigns...
What I meant was 10mm diameter. In other words I took a 10mm drill bit and held it up against the cross-section of the square section and compared the
curvature. It's probably closer to 8mm than 10mm and hence a 4mm corner radius. I'll drill a few holes and make radius gauges when I get a
minute.
In any event it is definitely well above the 2.5mm requirement for SVA so should be fine.
I had thought of using 1" round bar but I personally liked the look of square better. Also, it is much easier to align than round. All I did on
the top was cut the tube at an angle to provide a level surface (with respect to the ground plane) and then welded a piece of 25x3mm flat bar onto the
top to provide a stable foundation for the light. I then drilled the 10mm mounting hole and kept drilling down through the square section. I then
reamed out the hole in the square section to provide access for the socket to tighten the headlamp mount from below.
By the way, I mounted them farther forward to ensure that my indicator could be seen from the 45 degree inboard, 5 degree downward viewing angle. The
5 degree downward bit makes me laugh though because who on earth is going to be low enough to see your indicator from 5 degrees below the level on a
Locost???
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
Mave
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 04:35 PM |
|
|
Wow, they're tiny! Cool! Can they be even lower for SVA, or did you place them in the lowest position?
Marcel
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 05:01 PM |
|
|
They look great Craig. My only concern is the same as everyone elses...whether they dip to the left or just straight down. (They can be E marked and
not dip the right way...as lights for all road vehicles should be E marked)
Easy way to tell....look on the glass and there should be an arrow pointing right(looking from the front of the light) somewhere on it (usually at the
bottom). If theres no arrow they dip straight down AFAIK.
David
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 05:29 PM |
|
|
They can be quite a bit lower but you need to watch out for angles of visibility, especially for the indicators. If you are mounting your indicators
in some other way then this may be less of an issue for you. You also need to watch out for the top wishbones and cycle wing as the cycle wing comes
way over unless you limit the lock in some manner (not unheard of to get around this problem)
As for the "dipping" issue, I was assured by Darren at GTS that cars had passed SVA using these lights and they are indeed E-marked.
I'll check the beam pattern once I get the second one wired up and I'll post a pic here. I think maybe they do only dip down and not to
the left judging by the lens pattern - would this be an automatic fail?
Watch this space as I hope to wire the second light up this evening and will post a pic later.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 10:49 PM |
|
|
Hi again,
I have finished wiring up my headlights and have taken a few pictures as promised to show the beam pattern and lens detail. Click
here for details.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
ReMan
|
| posted on 21/3/05 at 11:11 PM |
|
|
I think theyre great and i`m going to have some
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 22/3/05 at 10:01 AM |
|
|
They look like they dip vertically to me. Probably will all come down to the SVA tester.... Other than the dipping they have all the correct marks on
them.
David
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 22/3/05 at 10:15 AM |
|
|
This has been discussed on another thread with mixed opinions but perhaps rotating both lights clockwise (viewed from rear) would help as this would
cause the downward dip to be partially to the left as well. I think I'll not worry about it for now and see what my pre-SVA MOT flags up.
Thanks for all the comments everyone!
Craig.
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 22/3/05 at 04:48 PM |
|
|
they look good craig.
I havent seen body mods for the mcsorley chassis before as im building a typeZR. I didnt realise the nosecones and bonnets had to be widened by so
much. Its a shame the engine bits poke through so much but i bet youve got some funky bulges in mind. The build looks very good, im impressed.
Arent the front arches a bit close to the tyres (i bet you were just waiting for a sarcy comment like that!! couldnt resist).
Off subject - nice garage. How big is it? Interesting roof!
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 22/3/05 at 05:18 PM |
|
|
Definite a vertical dip -- here is no angled kick up to illuminate the kerb side.
This beam pattern is acceptable for MOT (it was the old British and US standard) but I don't know about SVA.
I can't see angling the lamp making a difference as the tester will look for the kick up point in the beam as part of the aiming check.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 22/3/05 at 05:30 PM |
|
|
Hi Darren,
Thanks for your comments, most of then anyway... 
The McSorley 7+4 chassis is (funnily enough) exactly 4 inches wider than a standard chassis. (You're not the only one who can do sarcasm you
know... ) 
Yes I intend to fabricate some GRP bulges to cover the carbs. If I did it all over again I would in fact have made my chassis 1" taller by
extending all the vertical tubes by one inch. This would therefore require one inch less of a bulge in the bonnet which would have helped. The trick
will be trying to cover the carbs without the lines of the car being totally destroyed by a hideous bulge. What I hope to do is create a bulge where
the open end faces the back of the car. This should make it less conspicuous and also relieve excess air pressure and heat from the engine bay. I
understand that the nosecone on a typical "Seven" takes in too much air already. The bulge will start just in front of the join between
nose and bonnet extending to about 4 or 5 inches after the carbs and will be virtually full width.
As for my garage, it is 23 foot by 10 foot and about 8 foot high to the apex, 6 foot 5 inches to the top of the wall. I bought it from Hall's
Garden supplies (or something like that) and it is made by a company called Storemore. I believe it was designed in Canada and is able to support over
2 feet of snow on the roof according to the brochure. Cost me about £1300 all in although I had to make a 6" concrete base for it. It's a
very sturdy construction and very easy to assemble. It has also stood up to a few nasty gale force winds and (touch wood) has weathered the storm so
far...
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 23/3/05 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
BT,
Yes I agree there is certainly no sign of a kick up at the left side of the beam which as far as I can tell from the SVA manual means that my car does
not have the mandatory two "dipped beam headlights" and thus must be a fail. I hope this is incorrect though because these lights were
bought on the basis that they would pass SVA and in the latest GTS newsletter Darren actually says:
"The little black headlamps that are so very popular are now supplied with E marked glass, as are the chrome versions, making them even easier
to put through SVA. I have a large stock of these and they can go out immeadiately."
This would seem to imply that these headlights have already been known to pass SVA and I would really like to know on what basis they can be argued to
be compliant so that I can use that argument if required on my MOT/SVA.
Anyone got through SVA with these lights?
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
