Hmm Re: [E-Type] Economy effect on E-type?

I hate to admit to being an observer of the period but,

gas was about 17 cents/us gal. Regular grade
an XKE was 1/3 the price of a Ferrari.
Porsches were stones (like 90 hp)
The Corvette was cheaper and faster, so they stuck a 3:54 rear in the car
to give it some pep, 'cause gas was cheap.

And then in the 60’s the FREAKING US GOVT under the influence of Ralph
Nader, the anti christ, passed a bunch of safety and smog laws. And after
1967 1/2 that beautiful design was naderized with raised headlights and
lost the headlight covers, the triple carbs, the toggle switches, the
spinners on the wire wheels, etc.

And I don’t know how but I am sure Hillary Clinton was involved in this
conspiracy also.

Oh, and that’s why I drive a 1966.
:-)))

Off soapbox now.

Bill B

At 08:24 PM 12/4/2003 +0100, you wrote:

Hello,

Do you know how the economy and political issues in the 1950s and early
1960s affected the design of E-type? Perhaps you have recommendations on
sources with such information?

Michael

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

66 S1 OTS
e mail @Bill-B

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

Bill Bilotti wrote:

And then in the 60’s the FREAKING US GOVT under the influence of Ralph
Nader, passed a bunch of safety and smog laws. And after 1967 1/2
that beautiful design was naderized with raised headlights and lost
the headlight covers, the triple carbs, the toggle switches, the
spinners on the wire wheels, etc.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday I saw the James Bond flick on tv where his
tricked out AM uses the knockoffs to shred the tires on the Mustang.
I’ve heard that was one of the influences that caused the banning of
eared knockoffs but it may just be an urban legend. Certainly would
take a naive person to believe that a movie prop was real life.

But the S2 cars aren’t all bad, they do make great drivers due to some
of the evolutionary changes and the styling is something you can get
used to. But then I’m prejudiced.

George Cohn
'70 OTS S2

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

You know what…I challenge you to dig through the DOT regs for
1967-1971, and find anything that required these changes, except, perhaps
the spinners. Even the EPA regs could have been met with a less compromised
solution than the twin Stromberg arrangement. Most if it was Jaguar’s
overreaction. Or perhaps they never wanted to admit that some of these mods
were actually styling touch ups to a six year old design.

Mike Frank

At 11:57 PM 12/4/2003, you wrote:

And then in the 60’s the FREAKING US GOVT under the influence of Ralph
Nader, the anti christ, passed a bunch of safety and smog laws. And after
1967 1/2 that beautiful design was naderized with raised headlights and
lost the headlight covers, the triple carbs, the toggle switches, the
spinners on the wire wheels, etc.

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In reply to a message from Mike Frank sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

Lighting was a customer complaint on Series 1 cars. I remember my
neighbor, who owned a 65 OTS, constantly moaning that his
headlights were insufficient to allow him to safely manage the
hills in So.Marin County (fog) at night. He also was very critical
of the dash lighting, he called it useless. I think Jag felt the
realignment of the headlights to be a significant improvement. Too
bad they couldn’t do this and keep the covers too.
Randy–
Randall Harris
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In a message dated 12/5/03 8:56:13 AM Mountain Standard Time,
owner-e-type@jag-lovers.org writes:

Subject: Re: hmm Re: [E-Type] Economy effect on E-type?

In reply to a message from Mike Frank sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

Lighting was a customer complaint on Series 1 cars. I remember my
neighbor, who owned a 65 OTS, constantly moaning that his
headlights were insufficient to allow him to safely manage the
hills in So.Marin County (fog) at night. He also was very critical
of the dash lighting, he called it useless. I think Jag felt the
realignment of the headlights to be a significant improvement. Too
bad they couldn’t do this and keep the covers too.
Randy


The feds must have had something to do with the head lamp covers because all
cars dropped covered headlamps in 1968. VW, Fiat, Porsche, Etc.

I always thought that the rocker dash was totally bogus. I much prefer the
look and feel of toggles.

Richard Kuschel
“I canna’ change the Law of Physics” -----------Scotty

'68 OTS with almost all Series 1 appointements.
I kept the dual fan radiator and didn’t have a set of Series 1 doors.

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In reply to a message from Mike Frank sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

Mike,
As far as the carb change, I’m curious what you base your
statement on. The S-Zs were designed specifically to provide
tighter control over mixture, for emissions purposes, and '68 was,
I believe, the first year any emissions tests were required. In
those days, cold-start mixture was a particular problem, which is
why the crossover, etc. were added. These kinds of changes
appeared on most cars at that time.
As for the headlights, I can believe that was done more for
functional than regulatory reasons. The fact is, pretty as they
are, the covered headlights don’t work worth a damn, and it was a
point of criticism from day one, so you may be right on that one.
The rocker switches were absolutely a result of regulatory
changes, whether actual at that time, or on the horizon. There was
a lot of attention being paid (long overdue) to safety, and it was
understood that many puncture-type injuries were due to knees, etc.
jamming into switches, knobs, keys, etc. I don’t know for a fact
those regulations took effect in '68, but it was certainly close to
that time, and the tooling changes required for such a change takes
years, so the changes are often made ahead of schedule.
The knock-offs have always baffled me. It would really
surprise me if there were ever regulations dealing with that.
After all, to this day you can buy fake wire wheels with eared
knock-offs, and they were even offered by Detroit on the pimp-
mobile versions of some of their cars. I can’t imagine what the
argument for removing the ears would be.
But, on the other hand, it took about 20 years of intense
lobbying to overcome the requirement for round, sealed-beam
headlights…–
The original message included these comments:

You know what…I challenge you to dig through the DOT regs for
1967-1971, and find anything that required these changes, except, perhaps
the spinners. Even the EPA regs could have been met with a less compromised
solution than the twin Stromberg arrangement. Most if it was Jaguar’s
overreaction. Or perhaps they never wanted to admit that some of these mods
were actually styling touch ups to a six year old design.
Mike Frank


Ray Livingston
Santa Cruz, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

Ray Livingston writes:

The knock-offs have always baffled me.  It would really 

surprise me if there were ever regulations dealing with that.
After all, to this day you can buy fake wire wheels with eared
knock-offs, and they were even offered by Detroit on the pimp-
mobile versions of some of their cars. I can’t imagine what the
argument for removing the ears would be.

There must have been some law concerning their use. I remember reading
somewhere that in the late '80’s, Moss Motors got busted and a container of
parts impounded because there were something like 5,000 eared knock-offs in
the load. Apparently at one time, you couldn’t even get replacements for
them in this country.

George Cohn
'70 OTS

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In reply to a message from George Cohn sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

George,
Here’s one explanation that seems just idiotic enough to be
believable:
‘‘Eared knock-offs had been outlawed prior to 1970 due to
the ‘‘Isadora Duncan effect’’ in which one’s scarf becomes entangled
in a wheel nut at speed, leading to the rider’s untimely end.’’–
The original message included these comments:

There must have been some law concerning their use. I remember reading
somewhere that in the late '80’s, Moss Motors got busted and a container of
parts impounded because there were something like 5,000 eared knock-offs in
the load. Apparently at one time, you couldn’t even get replacements for
them in this country.
George Cohn


Ray Livingston
Santa Cruz, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

Ray Livingston writes:

In reply to a message from George Cohn sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

George,
Here’s one explanation that seems just idiotic enough to be
believable:
‘‘Eared knock-offs had been outlawed prior to 1970 due to
the ‘‘Isadora Duncan effect’’ in which one’s scarf becomes entangled
in a wheel nut at speed, leading to the rider’s untimely end.’’

That’s just weird enough to believe.

True story. One time a college roomate and another buddy and I went to
Disneyland from Tucson in his TR4A. They had the seats and I was laying
cross-wise in the space behind the seats. My legs were draped over one side
and I had boots on. As I drowsed off, every once in a while, a boot would
make contact with a knock-off and wake me up. Keep in mind that I am close
to 6’ 4".

Weird feeling and the thought sort of scares me now but hey, we were young
and foolish and life was just an open book… Hey wait, that’s a song!
:wink:

George Cohn
'70 OTS

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In reply to a message from Ray Livingston sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

And it's not really all that far-fetched.  I remember maybe 10-

15 years ago at the Six Flags Magic Mountain amusement park outside
of LA, a visitor was killed when her long, long hair got tangled in
the wheels on the Colossus roller coaster, literally scalping her.
Ouch!–
The original message included these comments:

George,
Here’s one explanation that seems just idiotic enough to be
believable:
‘‘Eared knock-offs had been outlawed prior to 1970 due to
the ‘‘Isadora Duncan effect’’ in which one’s scarf becomes entangled
in a wheel nut at speed, leading to the rider’s untimely end.’’

Ray Livingston


Ray Livingston
Santa Cruz, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

the isadora duncan effect ? sound plausible… remember that poster taht was
for sale a while back of an e-type with a lady and a long scarf?

George it’s not just the knock offs… it’s having your legs out in case he
had side swiped a wall or something…

I came across a story today about that women who was allegedly trampled at a
K MArt when they opened on friday morning, when people rush in to get the
bargain… apprently she has a history of about a dozen claims and lawsuit
for falling, slipping, etc…

Pascal----- Original Message -----
From: “George Cohn” gwcohn@bblabs.net
To: e-type@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: hmm Re: [E-Type] Economy effect on E-type?

Ray Livingston writes:

In reply to a message from George Cohn sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

George,
Here’s one explanation that seems just idiotic enough to be
believable:
‘‘Eared knock-offs had been outlawed prior to 1970 due to
the ‘‘Isadora Duncan effect’’ in which one’s scarf becomes entangled
in a wheel nut at speed, leading to the rider’s untimely end.’’

That’s just weird enough to believe.

True story. One time a college roomate and another buddy and I went to
Disneyland from Tucson in his TR4A. They had the seats and I was laying
cross-wise in the space behind the seats. My legs were draped over one
side
and I had boots on. As I drowsed off, every once in a while, a boot would
make contact with a knock-off and wake me up. Keep in mind that I am
close
to 6’ 4".

Weird feeling and the thought sort of scares me now but hey, we were young
and foolish and life was just an open book… Hey wait, that’s a song!
:wink:

George Cohn
'70 OTS

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

Mike,

I seem to have misplaced my 1968 CFR but I do think some of the changes were
a response to current or anticipated federal regulations.

The headlights were changed, I’m almost sure, because they were required to
be an inch or so higher than the location on the SI. This may have been a
convenient excuse to ditch the glass covers or they may have been legislated
out as well. Also, the new law(s) prohibited protrusions from the dash such
as the long actuators on the switches. It’s a mystery how the headlight dip
switch was retained as a toggle when all the others were rockers. Perhaps
because it’s located more or less behind the steering wheel. The changes to
the rear of the car in 1969 may or not have been a response to the new laws.
Dropping the lights below the bumper and adding the stainless trip piece may
have been an attempt to “freshen up” a design that had been on the market
for six years without any changes. That was an eternity in those days. The
side markers were definitely federally mandated.

I agree some of the changes may have been an over-reaction, typical for the
time. You may recall all the U.S. manufacturers pretty much stopped making
convertibles during the late sixties and early seventies, assuming roll-over
regulations would prohibit them.

One factor that leads one to believe many of the changes to the e-type were
based on current or anticipated legislation is Jaguar was developing the
XJ-6 during this period. I doubt if they had a lot of money to devote to
upgrading the e-type unless they were forced to as a condition to remaining
in the U.S. market.

Regarding the comments, not yours, below your message, I disagree strongly
with the writer’s contentions. I am no fan of Ralph Nader (my first car was
a Corvair), yet it is pretty difficult to argue the changes resulting from
the environmental and safety legislation that began in the late sixties
caused permanent damage to automotive progress. Granted, cars got a lot
worse during the seventies and eighties when the industry was adapting to
the changes. That period is over and now the auto buying public has a wider
choice of excellent automobiles at every price point than ever. These are
the good old days.

Allan Jones
'69 e-type with side markers defiantly removed-----Original Message-----
From: owner-e-type@jag-lovers.org [mailto:owner-e-type@jag-lovers.org]On
Behalf Of Mike Frank
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 4:53 AM
To: e-type@jag-lovers.org
Subject: Re: hmm Re: [E-Type] Economy effect on E-type?

You know what…I challenge you to dig through the DOT regs for
1967-1971, and find anything that required these changes, except, perhaps
the spinners. Even the EPA regs could have been met with a less compromised
solution than the twin Stromberg arrangement. Most if it was Jaguar’s
overreaction. Or perhaps they never wanted to admit that some of these mods
were actually styling touch ups to a six year old design.

Mike Frank

At 11:57 PM 12/4/2003, you wrote:

And then in the 60’s the FREAKING US GOVT under the influence of Ralph
Nader, the anti christ, passed a bunch of safety and smog laws. And after
1967 1/2 that beautiful design was naderized with raised headlights and
lost the headlight covers, the triple carbs, the toggle switches, the
spinners on the wire wheels, etc.

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

Story around the D.C. region is that Ralph Nader started the ball rolling
on the demise of the two (& 3) ear knock off after he saw the movie
where James Bond had knock offs that were extendible and used them
to chew up the bad guy’s tires.

The local story has it that he determined that if a car with “eared” knock
offs
got to close to a pedestrian they would cut up their legs…

Looking at my cars, if a pedestrian got that close to the knock off they
would
have been creamed by the bumper or fender first.

No matter what the “true” story is, it’s a shame they did not carry them
through
the full E-Type production run. They look nice. Actually they look
British…!

Mike O’
(someday Nader will get his just reward!)___________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: “Ray Livingston” rayl@atc.creative.com
To: e-type@jag-lovers.org
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: hmm Re: [E-Type] Economy effect on E-type?

In reply to a message from George Cohn sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

George,
Here’s one explanation that seems just idiotic enough to be
believable:
‘‘Eared knock-offs had been outlawed prior to 1970 due to
the ‘‘Isadora Duncan effect’’ in which one’s scarf becomes entangled
in a wheel nut at speed, leading to the rider’s untimely end.’’

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

A bit of usless knowledge for you re: knock off ears. The were outlawed in
1967 for presumed safety reasons. The law targeted items that extended form
the body width of the car, the logic being that a pedestrian close to the
car could be injured… Your governmant at work. For a while it was illegal
to manufacture and sell eared knock offs and wheel covers with fake eared
knock off such as those that were accessory on 1965 Mustangs. They were
contraband… This factoid is seared into my memory. My father was a
designer for Ford in the '60’s and I remember the dinner tably
conversations when he would come home from work grumping over the latest
government regulation getting in the way of good styling. You can only
imagine the gloom the day they required 5MPH bumpers! “They look like
Interstate guardrails…”

Anyway, that was the reason for earless knock offs and uncovered and then
raised headlights, and no more toggle switches on the '68 E’s. It was good
for you.

Eric Schumaker
1962 E OTS
1957 2.4
1973 XJ12

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

ESchumaker@honda.hra.com writes:

You can only
imagine the gloom the day they required 5MPH bumpers! “They look like
Interstate guardrails…”

HeHe. I can vouch for that.

I have a '73 240Z with the delicate chrome bumpers that wrap around the car
and offer as much protection as most e-type bumpers up to 1970 or so (little
to none).

I also have a '74 260Z with the “pendulum” bumpers that were mandated at
that time. Huge heavy affairs more fitting to a '50’s Buick, mounted on
horizontal shock absorbers for both front and rear. Adds about 200 pounds
and a good 10 inches to the vehicle.

One of the ugliest solutions I’ve ever seen for crash protection short of
hanging a surplus I-beam on the car.

Needless to say, I also have a set of earlier Z bumpers and will someday
figure out how to use them to replace the railroad cowcatchers.

Jaguar seemed to have gotten around this by just mounting bigger and bigger
blocks of rubber on the bumpers? Can anyone with an early and late S3
describe them?

George Cohn
'70 OTS

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In reply to a message from Allan Jones sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

Allan,
In fact, I believe the big-ass tail lights were mandated. For
the first time, the area of brake and tail lights was being
mandated, so gone were the dainty, elegant, and nearly ineffective
Series I tail/brake lights.
Re: interior safety - I recall reading a retrospective in a car
magazine many years ago, when they were looking at some old Detroit
Dinosaur from the '50s or early '60s, and the writer referred to
the almost knife-edged metal dash top as ‘‘safety by Gillette’’. I
always liked that comment… :slight_smile:
I saw a show on the History channel once about the evolution of
automotive safety, and they gave examples of what drove the
regulations for things like safety glass, non-protruding interior
fittings, etc. In many cases, it was the direct result of either
highly publicized, really gruesome accidents or just accident
statistics. Safety glass in particular. It was apparently quite
common for people to be nearly decapipated in fairly minor
accidents before safety glass became commonplace.–
The original message included these comments:

because it’s located more or less behind the steering wheel. The changes to
the rear of the car in 1969 may or not have been a response to the new laws.
Dropping the lights below the bumper and adding the stainless trip piece may
have been an attempt to ‘‘freshen up’’ a design that had been on the market
for six years without any changes. That was an eternity in those days. The
side markers were definitely federally mandated.


Ray Livingston
Santa Cruz, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In reply to a message from Allan Jones sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

Allan,
In fact, I believe the big-ass tail lights were mandated.

Geez Ray, wouldn’t “generously proportioned” or “visibility enhanced”
describe the lights just as well as “BIG-ASS”?:slight_smile:

Perhaps your next invention could be a modesty drape to hang from the rear
bumpers of those unfortunate SII and SIII cars.

I soooo embarrassed.

Allan Jones
'69 ots with B.A.T.L feature

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo-----Original Message-----
From: owner-e-type@jag-lovers.org [mailto:owner-e-type@jag-lovers.org]On
Behalf Of Ray Livingston
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 4:30 PM
To: e-type@jag-lovers.org
Subject: RE: hmm Re: [E-Type] Economy effect on E-type?

Allan Jones wrote:

Geez Ray, wouldn’t “generously proportioned” or “visibility enhanced”
describe the lights just as well as “BIG-ASS”?:slight_smile:

Perhaps your next invention could be a modesty drape to hang from the rear
bumpers of those unfortunate SII and SIII cars.

I soooo embarrassed.

Allan Jones
'69 ots with B.A.T.L feature

Don’t be embarrased. I happen to like them as well as the marker lights
on the side. When I’m driving the car at night, I want that person in
the SUV who is multi-tasking with a cell phone in one hand and a cup of
hot java in the other to see me!

George Cohn
'70 OTS also with B.A.T.L feature

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In reply to a message from Allan Jones sent Sat 6 Dec 2003:

Allan,
I believe it would be more politically correct to simply refer
to the SI lights as ‘‘visibility challenged’’. Also, I believe
you’re asking me to create what, in certain ‘‘professions’’, is
conventionally referred to as a ‘‘butt flap’’? :slight_smile:
Personally, I’ve never found the SII tail-lights to be
objectionable. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I have mild
preference for the SI lights, but I certainly don’t consider them
terribly practical, and I do worry about getting rear-ended due
to their poor visibility. They are awfully tiny…–
The original message included these comments:

Geez Ray, wouldn’t ‘‘generously proportioned’’ or ‘‘visibility enhanced’’
describe the lights just as well as ‘‘BIG-ASS’’?:slight_smile:
Perhaps your next invention could be a modesty drape to hang from the rear
bumpers of those unfortunate SII and SIII cars.
I soooo embarrassed.
Allan Jones
'69 ots with B.A.T.L feature


Ray Livingston
Santa Cruz, CA, United States
–Posted using Jag-lovers JagFORUM [forums.jag-lovers.org]–

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo

In a message dated 12/5/03 2:09:52 PM, owner-e-type@jag-lovers.org writes:

Subject: Re: hmm Re: [E-Type] Economy effect on E-type?

Ray Livingston writes:

In reply to a message from George Cohn sent Fri 5 Dec 2003:

George,
Here’s one explanation that seems just idiotic enough to be
believable:
''Eared knock-offs had been outlawed prior to 1970 due to
the ‘‘Isadora Duncan effect’’ in which one’s scarf becomes entangled

in a wheel nut at speed, leading to the rider’s untimely end.’’

That’s just weird enough to believe.

True story. One time a college roomate and another buddy and I went to

Disneyland from Tucson in his TR4A. They had the seats and I was laying

cross-wise in the space behind the seats. My legs were draped over one
side
and I had boots on. As I drowsed off, every once in a while, a boot would

make contact with a knock-off and wake me up. Keep in mind that I am close

to 6’ 4".

Laying cross-wise in the space behind the seats. . .??
Are you a chicken?

Lying cross-wise I could understand.

Search the archives & forums - http://search.jag-lovers.org/
Subscription changes - http://www.jag-lovers.com/cgi-bin/majordomo