(no subject)

[John Patterson]

Hi Gang.
Can someone tell me who is making the MG racing engines for the MG-LOLA
that was so impressive at LE MANS?
Also someone said there was a nasty article in the last Hemmings about
White Post who rebuilds the brake cylinders. They did a very nice job on
mine a year ago. What happened?
John P TC 7025

[rmeismer1@aol.com]

Thanks everone for the help and advice on my squeak. It turns out that the
frist reply nailed it , from( Larry McCartt ) the lobes in the distributor
was dry as the car had set for 3 or 4 years. Thanks Larry

From M.G.( Meismer's Garage)
Rolland Meismer
Burlington,Iowa U.S.A.
1947 TC #3409--1951 TD #5522


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Patterson]

Hi Gang- I blew an oil line from the filter to the block coming home from a
car show on Sat and have ordered a new one from Moss. My question, is there
a spin off type of filter unit that will fit a TC and where can I get one?.
I might want to change to this type of filter unit If the group recommends
it. This is the second time in the 46 years I have owned this TC that this
particular oil line let go. I have the aluminum filter unit with the twine
filter cartridge in it which I changed to in the 60's when this unit came
out. Maybe the unit is vibrating and putting stress on this line?
thanks
John Patterson TC 7025

[John Patterson]

H Gang- My mistake- its the check valve not the needle that moves up and
down in the jet.

FIX THE PROBLEM, NOT THE BLAME

[laf48@aol.com]

[Bullwinkle]

While searching for voltage regulator settings for modern
batteries, I found this:

http://www.logsa.army.mil/psmag/psonline.htm


--
Blake
MG TD
MGA twin cam
Home page: http://members.nvc.net/yd3/
NAMGAR Technical Reprint Provider:
http://www.mgcars.org.uk/namgar/techpage.htm

[i.thomson@talk21.com]

Blake, I am sure that you have reached the nub of the matter. The focus on safety does not surprise me as in an earlier posting I alluded to the fact that this would be the ultimate argument used in this discussion. This is far from any real considerations (IMO) of the importance of historical perspective and reflects more our present preoccupation with safety. On this side of the pond such arguments are effectively demanding not so much that we are "safe" as that under no circumstances should we be hurt AT ALL (and if we are we will sue). I expect it is much the same over there - or are you way ahead of us? Historical perspective allows us to understand why the cars were designed as they were but safety considerations demand that we must view this through present day eyes. But (once again IMO) we must acknowledge our present obsession with safety as it is this which determines the individuals concern with "how safe" which Blake talks about. How does this affect our cars, their modernisation and originality? Well, if I take Blake's five points I find it difficult to justify any of them without changing the cars to such an extent that they cease to become the cars I care so much for. Dual braking systems, side intrusion beams, anti-burst door locks and collapsible columns belong to modern cars, not ours. IMO it would be impossible to incorporate such things (well perhaps the dual braking sysem but what's the point without intalling a servo and changing the brakes themselves) without creating a travesty of the original. I must admit to having some misgivings about the steering column and even use this as an argument for not having seat belts in mine - as I have outlined in earlier arguments. If you really want such things buy a modern car. I believe that if we accept that we can never have the complete safety which we seem to crave so much that we can address the problem better by our driving style and the roads we choose to drive on. Or to put it another way - consider the driving conditions which existed at the time they were designed and try to drive the cars in the style, and on the roads, for which they are most suited. I accept that there are times when modern traffic does not mix with our cars. Higher visibility rear light will help here and I have no objection to these. After all the TC was designed with only one rear lamp ( and no indicators) at least here in UK and who amongst us has not changed this. The law here actually demands two lights anyway so there goes originality. We can never be completely safe, even not going on the roads is not an option as most accidents happen in the home anyway. In conclusion I must say that I find this a much better discussion than the "mine's better than yours" ones about originality.

Ian Thomson

--------

I agree

>with Sam and others who feel that if a TC is to be driven on
>today's
>roads, there are a number of safty-related systems that must
>be
>modernized.

>Yes! It also depends on the individuals concern for "How
>Safe" and how far to go to accomplish that. Witness the
>greater number of cars with shoulder straps and not just lap
>belts.
>
>One might be able to add:
>1) Dual braking systems
>2) Collapsing steering column, for me more important than a
>dual braking system beacuse the is rack located AHEAD of the
>front cross member.
>3) Side intrusion door beams or other methods of
>strengthening the side impact area.
>4) Stonger or additional interior door latches.
>5) Rollover (crash) bars
>
>The question then becomes how far does one go, how obvious
>the changes, or the changes to the character of the car.
>--
>Blake
>MG TD
>MGA twin cam

--------------------
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com

[Paul Camp]

Ian
I agree- The one safety consideration I have adopted is to replace the
headlights with Halogens (happen to be in 7" lenses) together with uprated
rear lights ( a third one behind the spare gives even better rear
identity)As one who does a reasonable amount of night driving the originals
give insufficient light for safe driving in todays conditions. Anyway it is
easy to revert back to originals if making a museum piece!!
Regards
Paul
TC3348

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:11 AM
Subject: [mg-tabc] (No Subject)


>
> Blake, I am sure that you have reached the nub of the matter. The focus
on safety does not surprise me as in an earlier posting I alluded to the
fact that this would be the ultimate argument used in this discussion. This
is far from any real considera
> ions (IMO) of the importance of historical perspective and reflects more
our present preoccupation with safety. On this side of the pond such
arguments are effectively demanding not so much that we are "safe" as that
under no circumstances should we be
> urt AT ALL (and if we are we will sue). I expect it is much the same
over there - or are you way ahead of us? Historical perspective allows us
to understand why the cars were designed as they were but safety
considerations demand that we must view thi
> through present day eyes. But (once again IMO) we must acknowledge our
present obsession with safety as it is this which determines the individuals
concern with "how safe" which Blake talks about. How does this affect our
cars, their modernisation and
> riginality? Well, if I take Blake's five points I find it difficult to
justify any of them without changing the cars to such an extent that they
cease to become the cars I care so much for. Dual braking systems, side
intrusion beams, anti-burst door lo
> ks and collapsible columns belong to modern cars, not ours. IMO it would
be impossible to incorporate such things (well perhaps the dual braking
sysem but what's the point without intalling a servo and changing the brakes
themselves) without creating a
> ravesty of the original. I must admit to having some misgivings about the
steering column and even use this as an argument for not having seat belts
in mine - as I have outlined in earlier arguments. If you really want such
things buy a modern car. I
> elieve that if we accept that we can never have the complete safety which
we seem to crave so much that we can address the problem better by our
driving style and the roads we choose to drive on. Or to put it another
way - consider the driving condition
> which existed at the time they were designed and try to drive the cars in
the style, and on the roads, for which they are most suited. I accept that
there are times when modern traffic does not mix with our cars. Higher
visibility rear light will help
> here and I have no objection to these. After all the TC was designed with
only one rear lamp ( and no indicators) at least here in UK and who amongst
us has not changed this. The law here actually demands two lights anyway so
there goes originality. W
> can never be completely safe, even not going on the roads is not an
option as most accidents happen in the home anyway. In conclusion I must say
that I find this a much better discussion than the "mine's better than
yours" ones about originality.
>
> Ian Thomson
>
> --------
>
> I agree
> >with Sam and others who feel that if a TC is to be driven on
> >today's
> >roads, there are a number of safty-related systems that must
> >be
> >modernized.
>
> >Yes! It also depends on the individuals concern for "How
> >Safe" and how far to go to accomplish that. Witness the
> >greater number of cars with shoulder straps and not just lap
> >belts.
> >
> >One might be able to add:
> >1) Dual braking systems
> >2) Collapsing steering column, for me more important than a
> >dual braking system beacuse the is rack located AHEAD of the
> >front cross member.
> >3) Side intrusion door beams or other methods of
> >strengthening the side impact area.
> >4) Stonger or additional interior door latches.
> >5) Rollover (crash) bars
> >
> >The question then becomes how far does one go, how obvious
> >the changes, or the changes to the character of the car.
> >--
> >Blake
> >MG TD
> >MGA twin cam
>
>
>
> --------------------
> talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at
http://www.talk21.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[green47tc]

It seems I have joined a group of opinionated old men. (alas- I
remember Sky King) We each have our opinions on originality and a
primal urge to express them, but we are unlikely to change another
person's opinion by mere repetition. Perhaps we should state our
opinions ONCE.
Bludgeoning is unbecoming, whether it is done with emails or blunt
instruments.
I joined the list because I recently managed to purchase my dream
car. When I first saw a TC at age 9 I had a J. Thadeus Toad
experience- " THAT is a motorcar".
MG did not produce the TC as the perfect car (if they had they would
have never changed it- like Morgan). MG produced the car to make a
profit; by clothing pedestrian running gear in a sporty body- an
English Mustang. Some of the TC's features are sublime; some are
safety concerns caused by period custom and the parts bin. It is not
as fast or as safe as a Hyundai, but for each of us the TC is part
of our fantasies. Perhaps for a simpler time, perhaps for a career
in racing. We all have opinions as to what is a REAL TC. There is
no REAL TC. When the TC was new it was used for different purposes
by different owners. So it is today.
Water Rat said it best: " Believe me, my young friend, there is
nothing- absolutely nothing- half so much worth doing as simply
messing about in TCs".
apologies to Kenneth Grahame
TC Toad

[i.thomson@talk21.com]

Stand by for a protracted debate about whether to glue or not. Who will be the first to claim that screwed joints flex better than glued ones?

Ian Thomson


----------

> Speaking of adhesives, I was astounded on dismantling my - admittedly
>frightfully ramshackle - body (the TC, that is!) over the summer, that it
>appears to be screwed together only! Not a drop of glue anywhere as far as I
>could see. Now I know it was designed to flex and all the rest of it, but is
>this a purely MG thing? Anyone know about the old coach-built Rollers and
>stuff?
>
>Regards to all, David Lodge

--------------------
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com