Vintage Headlight Dipping

Peter - please don't take this as definitive, but my memory of the Construction and Use regs broadly says that you may use whatever was originally fitted provided it works. So you could not use single dipping and swivel on a more modern car, but if that's the way it was originally built then I think you should be OK. Your car may have been "upgraded" in the thirties, as many were to take in later coachwork, semaphore indicators etc, but that does not disqualify original equipment. Probably the RREC would be able to give more useful advice.

Geoff MacK

I can just about remember the legislation for two rear lights coming into operation. We had a Morris Minor which had to have an extra lamp fitted, although there was already a dummy there. One of the few bits of retrospective construction and use type regulations. And I *think* the requirement for two dipped headlights came in at the same time, although IIRC all post war cars - and many pre - had a double dipping system. I've seen some pre-war cars fitted with two solenoid operated dips - presumably using discarded parts from another.

Not sure if it applied to cars of all ages, but the twin tail lights certainly did.

I'd have thought there would be a much more sanitary way to provide dips on your car - although perhaps you don't use it on unlit roads?

Peter

I am in the midst of a restoration of a car with the same system and it just so happens that I spoke to my friendly local MOT examiner only last week on the subject. His opinion (which my car club confirms as correct) is that the system is perfectly legal. Apparently it was outlawed sometime in the sixties or seventies but became reinstated as a result of further legislation sometime in the eighties. You are therefore free to reinstate the single dip system should you wish. I would personally advise against it however if you intend to use the car during the hours of darkness - it just isn't safe in this day and age. There are plenty of other solutions which usually involve fitting new bulbholders and double filament bulbs. This however will involve running extra wiring for a dip switch (the switch fitted will not be a changeover switch) an additional wire to the nearside headlight for the dip filament and a wire to the dash for the obligatory blue main beam warning light.

Gaspode

The original system is illegal, the current system depends on the the head lights being set below the "dazzle angle" for its legality.

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

There's absolutely no requirement for a dash mounted main-beam warning light, and even if there's one fitted, it doesn't have to be blue.

I've got umpteen cars with no indicator or beam warning light, never had even the slightest comment off the tester. On one of the few in the "fleet" that does have a beam warning light, it's orange.

The regs were change to accomodate Citreons with headlights that turn when front wheels are steered. Don't think this aplied to dipping mechanisms.

I think "The Complete Automobilist" might be able to supply all the required parts.

Yes there is a requirement but it isn't part of the normal MOT test procedure to check it.

MOT test covers all obligatory lights - main beam and flasher tell tails are obligatory but they are not part of the test procedure nor are thery listed on the VT29 check list. A similar problem existed over numberplate lights which went out and in as an MOT failure item -- they are very firmly a failure if not working.

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

"They're obligatory. All obligatory lights are tested. But they aren't tested."

To me, that sounds more than a little contradictory.

The MOT book, as on

specifically states that an *audible* indicator tell-tale is acceptible. There is NO mention of a beam tell-tale.

Now, I've not got access to the "genuine" MOT tester's manual, so it may be that that site is incorrect in it's transcription.

OK - let's ignore the MOT. That's not *everything* wrt legality.

If indicator and beam warning lights were obligatory, they would be fitted to all new cars available in the UK, would they not? And, up until the demise of the 2cv in '90, they were not fitted to 2cvs for UK spec. For other countries, where they *were* undeniably required, they were fitted. For those countries, fog lights often weren't required, so weren't fitted. DimDip was a UK only thing, so was only fitted to UK cars. Therefore, if indicator and beam warning lights were required here, they'd have been fitted.

I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong, so if you have any evidence other than a gut feeling, please do prove me wrong.

There is a problem in trying to solve the problem by just fitting twin filament bulbs. These rely on there being a prismatic glass on the headlamp. As most solenoid dip lamps have either only a plain or frosted glass switching between filaments does not "dip" the beam it just makes it slightly out of focus. My MOT man has never seemed to mind however. Most old lamps are so dim that dazzle is rarely a problem

Quite a few cars in the 1920's had a dimming rather than dipping arrangement that switched the two headlamps from parallel to series

Malcolm

: Yes there is a requirement but it isn't part of the normal MOT test : procedure to check it.

I have a car built in 1985 which doesn't have one.

Ian

In article , Malcolm writes

Yes Malcolm, my headlamps are fitted with plain glass. Thank you for telling me that the dimmer switches between parallel and series, it will help me diagnose the intermittent fault, as I had thought it might involve a resistance.

I am most grateful to everyone who took the trouble to respond to my post. It seems my friendly MOT tester is right when he describes vintage car headlamp legality as 'a grey area'.

Conversion to double filament bulbs would be the completely legal and safe course, but also the most complicated, and I don't envisage driving the car at night except in a dire emergency.

Restoring the original extinguish/swivel system would be satisfying, but with Geoff and Gaspode saying it's legal, and 'awm' saying it definitely isn't, it appears a bit controversial.

On the whole, I think I had better stay with the dimmer system that has passed MOTs for umpteen years.

This solution is what my late father called: 'Pursuing a masterly policy of complete inactivity'.

Peter (Remove 'spam' to e-mail)