| Author |
 Topic  |
|
doctorbob
United Kingdom
145 Posts |
 Posted - 14/03/2012 : 11:19:09
|
There seem to be several versions of the Lucas ST38 lamp, which is 'correct' for a 1933 swept wing car ? I've seen ST38/A's and ST38/E's, and I suppose just plain ST38's !!!
Or are all just as 'correct' as each other ?
Cheers Bob |
|
|
David Allison
United Kingdom
665 Posts |
Posted - 14/03/2012 : 14:23:05
|
The answer to your question is I am pretty sure - neither are correct for a J2.
The "Porkpie" rear lamp was fitted to the N - but I thought that the J had the smaller tail lamps?
I am prepared to be proved wrong - probably am!
Most pre-war cars were originally only fitted with a single tail lamp.
Twin tail lights at the rear of a car only became law after the war - again might be wide of the mark here but I am pretty sure.
Brake lights came in at about the same time.
It is a while since I worked as an MOT tester (when all these facts were kept up top) but the revised regulations on side and tail lamps came in either just before or just after WWII.
Brake lights came in slightly after this.
All of this was for new cars though (unless you chose to convert them) and was only made law for all road vehicles with the introduction of the ministry test.
A lot of cars would then have been converted to twin tail lamps and brake lights during the period around the introduction of the MOT test which was I think in the early 60's.
There is a kit to convert the small cylindrical tail light fitted to the J2 into a combined tail and brake light I think.
All that said I would almost certainly fit the "Porkpie" type because they are larger and more robust.
As to the numbers - these differenciate the versions of the lamp.
ST38 does not in original form have a clear section for a number plate lamp.
ST38/A does have the clear number plate lense and is painted black (might have been black anodised hence the A).
ST 38/E is the same as above but electroplated (hence the E).
I think that is correct but stand to be corrected by those much more knowlegable.
Regards David |
 |
|
|
greg
United Kingdom
833 Posts |
Posted - 14/03/2012 : 15:40:21
|
I think David is correct I'm not too sure what the swept wing j had. The single tail lamp David is referring to is a Lucas tf 201 or a tf 201a. The two lamps are virtually the same the tops are different. One has two buttons on the side of the top part which pushes into the inside of the base. I like them the best. The other type pushes over the outside of the base. It is hard to get them off without scratching the paint. I will pub two photos on showing the different types so every one knows what I mean.
As for the pork pie lamps the mmm mg's which had them fitted they were stamped A. The ones which are stamped E at the end are postwar. The differences between the two lamps are that the pre war ones had a Lucas badge in the post war didn't. |
|
|
|
David Allison
United Kingdom
665 Posts |
Posted - 14/03/2012 : 15:57:07
|
| Thanks Greg! |
|
|
|
PeterL
United Kingdom
1722 Posts |
Posted - 14/03/2012 : 17:54:02
|
Here you are.
Cheers
P
|
|
|
|
doctorbob
United Kingdom
145 Posts |
Posted - 14/03/2012 : 18:07:26
|
| Gentlemen, thank you for the info. The 'proper' light looks not disimilar to a Lucas motorcycle rear lamp. I may well need to do a bit more hunting to find the right lamp to fit to the car. Having said that the ST38/A seems like an in period modification. |
|
|
|
Robin Macmillan
United Kingdom
415 Posts |
Posted - 14/03/2012 : 18:18:35
|
Dear all,
Some years ago whilst driving shortly after nightfall in a modern car I VERY nearly ran into the back of a black MMM car .... its rear lights were so poor that I really could not see it at all. As a consequence I have chosen to use those nasty reflective number plates in addition to the pork pies. Clipping pressed aluminium plates over the reflective ones is an option for those wishing to be able to present their car in period style. Remember to protect your backside is the message.
regards
robin
PB 0527 |
|
|
|
Colin Morse
United Kingdom
28 Posts |
Posted - 14/03/2012 : 18:38:29
|
A local vintage car protects its back end with a large reflective warning triangle strapped to the spare wheel.
You know the type, the collapsible triangle that you errect in the road behind the car when it breaks down.
I don't know if this would be:
(a) legal
(b) confusing
(c) or simply very effective!!
J2332 |
|
|
|
LewPalmer
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 14/03/2012 : 23:01:40
|
I find that the Lucas 582, although not ABSOLUTELY correct, is a reasonably similar lamp to the original, yet provides a much bigger lens for visibility. I has a pair on my J2 cycle wing model.
Lew Palmer
Registrar, NAMMMR |
|
|
|
poulsendk
Denmark
270 Posts |
Posted - 15/03/2012 : 06:38:22
|
I have fitted Lucas 582 for light/brake and turn on my M type
Jřrgen Poulsen
MGM 1930 MGM 1931 |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3238 Posts |
Posted - 15/03/2012 : 11:14:10
|
Hi Bob
I managed to find two original restored rear lights - ST38s I believe - for L2023. I agree with others, it is far better to be well lit and visible on todays crowded roads rather than slavishly follow the original poor rear lighting!
On the same theme of safety the lights above these rear lights are direction indicators.
Regsrds
George
L2023 and NA0960
Nr Buckingham, UK
|
|
|
|
Mike Allison
United Kingdom
196 Posts |
Posted - 15/03/2012 : 11:48:26
|
Hi all experts!
The requirement in the UK for twin rear lamps came into action for all cars in 1954, just after I passed my test. I had to fit these to my side valve Minor, and we used units similar to the modern Minor, one on each wing, leaving the original small lamp in place to light up the number plate.
The original fitment for the J2 was that as shown in the picture of PeterL. These are specifically illegal in the UK, as the lenses are too small, and should not pass the MOT test, unless there are supplemenary TWIN lights fitted in addition.
The 582 light which Lew Palmer highlights are the nearest legally acceptable lamp to the original for a J2, but these should be fitted in pairs for the UK, to meet MOT test requirements. Additionally the lamps should be fitted so that they are not more than fifteen inches inboard of the widest part of the car, measured from both sides.
The ST38 lamp became available after 1933, and incorporated a separate brake bulb, which was a legal requirement after 1937, and outside the Triple-M period, although brake lights were fitted as standard to all models after 1933-model year. The ST38 was used (singly) for the P, L, N and KN models. It was available with either black lacquer finish or chrome-plated.
Other countries will have their own regulations, and I fear I cannot speak for these. No doubt the current MOT standard has been metricated, but I speak from the regulations I remember from yen years ago.
I hope all this is helpful,
Mike |
|
|
|
Gordon
United Kingdom
691 Posts |
Posted - 15/03/2012 : 14:43:02
|
Can anyone confirm that on cars 1st used prior to 1971 that there is no minimum height of the rear lamps but that they must not be more than 15.75 in. from the side and that this also applies to the rear reflectors?
Gordon
PB 0331, MG4473
Derby |
|
|
|
Terry Andrews
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - 15/03/2012 : 17:42:59
|
Margaret and I enjoy the Triple-M touring events. However, with our Triple-M lights so low down they do not get seen very easily when modern day drivers drive too close to you. Also when driving in wet weather they soon get dirty. Recently I have made a test rig checking out the latest LED technology against conventional bulbs. More on this at a later date. I wish to keep my cars looking “period” but as safe as possible. To this end I fitted additional brake light to my TC which I which I sold last year. (see below) I am putting and extra ST 38 on the back of the N type to cover the functions of rear light, brake light and rear fog light. Currently, I am fitting a modified rear fog light with a double filament bulb for stop and tail light on our P type. These extra lights are fitted behind the spare wheel but show up well through the spokes. Other may with to consider this….. Regards…. Terry A
PS these comments to not apply to Triple-M 4 seaters as their light are high up!
|
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1044 Posts |
Posted - 15/03/2012 : 19:34:12
|
Terry
I have recently done a similar test on our BGT and was rather dissapointment with the LED bulbs.
Though I am thinking about making a custom plate with as many LED's as possible for the two (totally incorrect) D type lamps for my D.
How did your experiment fair?
Onno "D" Könemann |
|
|
|
Alan Bertram
United Kingdom
199 Posts |
Posted - 15/03/2012 : 20:47:54
|
Hi Terry, I must agree with you.
This photograph was taken at Silverstone MG Live 2010 and shows a third tail and stop light on a plate bolted to the spare wheel carrier. The Gentleman owner told me he had almost been rammed in the rear and a high level tail/brake light was a necessary safety addition to improve the cars visibility and discourage tailgating.
I have acquired a third Lucas ST38 rear lamp and intend to follow this advice, if I ever manage to get my car back together!
Regards, Alan
PA 0397 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
