Zebrazone windscreen W.T.B.

"dixie" realised it was Wed, 9 Feb 2005

19:21:12 -0000 and decided it was time to write:

Only goes for TR6 and Spitfires Mk1, 2 and 3. MkIV and 1500 have taller screens.

dixie ( snipped-for-privacy@wales.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

You're mad.

This is not an item that any driver would want to be original, unless it stays in a museum? Or you fit it for concours events? Or trailer it everywhere?

If everything else is so perfect (original) that a safe screen lets it down, then it must be too good to drive?

mrcheerful

I can see why. There's something nostalgic and accurate about putting on a pair of Polaroids and seeing the tempering patterns in a Zebra zone toughened glass windscreen. It's not so bad to want that, is it? We drove the things for years and I busted two or three, all but one wasn't even a damned Zebra one, so I was blinded until I pushed a hole out of the glass. They were company cars, so I didn't care about the glass bits in the vents and all over the paintwork...

Errrr.. hold on a minute...

I suppose you'll be fitting crossply tyres too? You must be mad ;-)

Years ago, when using an HA viva, I heard that 6.2 - 12 crossplys were what the car was designed to use as a 'performance' tyre. I got some and tried them on a set of alloys from a Hillman imp. The grip and handling were atrocious compared to the 155 - 12 Dunlop sp4s (remember those, they used to disintegrate while you drove, and then explode) I had previously. I took the 6.2s off after a few days and sold them on through the viva club. So even something designed for crossplys can benefit from radials. Ooh, there's a thought, surely the OP should get some forty plus year old tyres as newer tyres will have a date stamp later than manufacture of the car.

mrcheerful

What's so "safe" about a laminated screen ?

All these things are relative. A Spitfire with a loose steering rack and a wheel hanging off is still safer than a brand new Nova with one of our local teenagers driving it. If you're going to get fussy about not driving a Spit unless it can be "made safe", then look at the rear suspension long before worrying about the windscreen !

And what about a Spit with an original zebrazone screen ? Should that be replaced as a dastardly hazard ?

Personally I'd prefer a laminated screen, because I often drive in polarised glasses and zebrazones always annoyed me. But I'd fit whatever I could get, not obsess over it.

Andy Dingley ( snipped-for-privacy@codesmiths.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Have you ever had a stone hit a toughened screen at speed?

If and when you manage to stop with no forward vision without hitting anything, you then have the deep joy of smashing the remains of the old screen out, so you can limp home at 20mph with windblast making your eyes water.

Once you've wasted a day getting the majority of the bits of glass out of every tiny nook and cranny in the car, you then have to live with rattles and a blast of powdered glass every time you put the demister on until you give up and strip the heater out.

This is always assuming the window didn't blow in and cover you with tiny cuts and glass dust. The last toughened screen I had break did. Luckily, I wear glasses, so didn't get it in my eyes.

My '62 and '64 Mini's both have their original windscreens - which I am keeping. They just have the "right" look about them. I'm going to be fitting crossplies too, since radials don't look right. Mad or not, that's what I want to do, so that's what I will do.

-- Howard Rose

1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe 1962 Austin Mini Deluxe 1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe (cars on website)

In 20-some years I've only had three windscreen impacts. One (toughened) chipped without shattering (a very small chip), one laminated screen produced a small star small enough for a resin kit to fix it, and one laminated screen split right across and later fell in.

Yes, a laminated screen is safer. New cars should have laminated screens. But it's such a minor difference that there's no reason to start hooting and hollering about fitting a toughened screen to an old Spit being some terrible safety hazard.

I've also driven a couple of pre-war cars with "greenhouse" glass in their screens. As they're just flat glass, then there's some argument that they ought to be replaced.

Andy Dingley ( snipped-for-privacy@codesmiths.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

You are incredibly lucky. Or I'm incredibly unlucky.

My current main car has gained three good-size stone chips in windscreen in the 50k I've had it. All have been stones thrown up by cars coming the other way, so it's not that I follow too closely.

I see absolutly nothing wrong with crossply tyres, I have them fitted to all four corners of my car.

Alex

Alex ( snipped-for-privacy@cbmsys.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

The radial tyre carcass was a huge leap forward when it was launched

**sixty** years ago. Crossplies have hardly seen any further major development since then, unlike radials...

Well, considering my vehicle was designed 60 years ago, that makes sense. I don't see why I need radials, they have no advantages over crossplies on my vehicle.

Alex

Given the Spit's amusing ideas about rear camber, there are some positive advantages to fitting crossplies (all round, naturally). Same goes for rear-engined Skodas and Tatras.

Although anyone attempting to corner fast in a Tatra 603 is clearly mad anyway.

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "mrcheerful ." saying something like:

The first SOCs I had were on xplies and every one benefited greatly from radials being fitted. Only thing about xplies was the more gradual drift you got from them, leading to some interesting controllable slides that would have needed more power to do with radials.

I prefer chrome bumpers myself.

And you can't drive a Skoda fast anyway.

Alex

Quite, and also shouldn't we add that if the laminated replacement is more readily available and perhaps cheaper then there is *absolutely* no argument to use the toughened one?