LED - cars turn the tables on bikes....

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

One of the last pleasures I've had in
cycling, is now being taken away.
Because of the huge growth of cars and
driving, I switched to mostly day riding
to mostly night riding, to get away from
the cars. Have all the fancy
taillights, reflecto, and LED
headlights. But now, increasingly cars
are coming out with LED headlights,
which are very disturbing to a night
rider such as myself. When they come at
you, the car LED's are blinding, I guess
revenge for when they had to squint at
my LED. But here is the problem, LED's
are more of a flood light than a spot.
With car halogen lights, when they came
up from behind, you could tell what they
were doing by what their lights were
doing. But with a car LED lights, you
don't have a clue. In fact the first
few times I almost went into the ditch
because I thought for sure they were
headed right for me. Even when they are
a lane away, it feels like they're
coming up right over your ass. My last
refuge,.......now ruined by technology.

[landotter]

On Jan 13, 6:06 pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> One of the last pleasures I've had in
> cycling, is now being taken away.
> Because of the huge growth of cars and
> driving, I switched to mostly day riding
> to mostly night riding, to get away from
> the cars. Have all the fancy
> taillights, reflecto, and LED
> headlights. But now, increasingly cars
> are coming out with LED headlights,
> which are very disturbing to a night
> rider such as myself. When they come at
> you, the car LED's are blinding, I guess
> revenge for when they had to squint at
> my LED. But here is the problem, LED's
> are more of a flood light than a spot.
> With car halogen lights, when they came
> up from behind, you could tell what they
> were doing by what their lights were
> doing. But with a car LED lights, you
> don't have a clue. In fact the first
> few times I almost went into the ditch
> because I thought for sure they were
> headed right for me. Even when they are
> a lane away, it feels like they're
> coming up right over your ass. My last
> refuge,.......now ruined by technology.

Those aren't LEDs, they're HIDs--unless you happen to live an an Audi
infested neighborhood.

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Jan 13, 7:06*pm, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> One of the last pleasures I've had in
> cycling, is now being taken away.
> Because of the huge growth of cars and
> driving, I switched to mostly day riding
> to mostly night riding, to get away from
> the cars. *Have all the fancy
> taillights, reflecto, and LED
> headlights. *But now, increasingly cars
> are coming out with LED headlights,
> which are very disturbing to a night
> rider such as myself. *When they come at
> you, the car LED's are blinding, I guess
> revenge for when they had to squint at
> my LED. *But here is the problem, LED's
> are more of a flood light than a spot.
> With car halogen lights, when they came
> up from behind, you could tell what they
> were doing by what their lights were
> doing. *But with a car LED lights, you
> don't have a clue. *In fact the first
> few times I almost went into the ditch
> because I thought for sure they were
> headed right for me. *Even when they are
> a lane away, it feels like they're
> coming up right over your ass. *My last
> refuge,.......now ruined by technology.

are you riding in an urban or rural environmennt ?

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <13olafumh81o579@corp.supernews.com>,
Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote:

> One of the last pleasures I've had in
> cycling, is now being taken away.
> Because of the huge growth of cars and
> driving, I switched to mostly day riding
> to mostly night riding, to get away from
> the cars. Have all the fancy
> taillights, reflecto, and LED
> headlights. But now, increasingly cars
> are coming out with LED headlights,
> which are very disturbing to a night
> rider such as myself. When they come at
> you, the car LED's are blinding, I guess
> revenge for when they had to squint at
> my LED. But here is the problem, LED's
> are more of a flood light than a spot.
> With car halogen lights, when they came
> up from behind, you could tell what they
> were doing by what their lights were
> doing. But with a car LED lights, you
> don't have a clue. In fact the first
> few times I almost went into the ditch
> because I thought for sure they were
> headed right for me. Even when they are
> a lane away, it feels like they're
> coming up right over your ass. My last
> refuge,.......now ruined by technology.

LEDs are just point sources of light. The beam is whatever the lenses
make them into.

LED headlights are still rare except on exotic cars. An efficient 1W
LED costs about $4 and the cheaper LEDs are too difficult to cool.
You're probably seeing aftermarket HID kits or fakes having high-power
tungsten bulbs in blue glass. Factory HID headlights have an
top-quality beam pattern.

--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

> Those aren't LEDs, they're HIDs--unless you happen to live an an Audi
> infested neighborhood.
--------
Did a quick search on Nissan, and you're
right they are HID. They sure act and
look like LED's, in that light also goes
out at right angles like an LED. With
those you get a good look at the ditch,
cops won't need spotlights anymore.

[It's Chris]

Personally, I like the HID headlamps.

My night riding (actually all my riding) is on country roads which
probably is the reason for this. But "regular" and halogen lights are
quite blinding when they are coming at me, and on a road without street
lights, this means a period of absolute blackness until my irises
readjust. but the HID's seem to be more coherent. They shine where they
are pointed and not so much in my eyes.

Translation, I'm not blinded by their passing.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[me]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:11:10 -0700, Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:

>> Those aren't LEDs, they're HIDs--unless you happen to live an an Audi
>> infested neighborhood.
> --------
> Did a quick search on Nissan, and you're right they are HID. They sure
> act and look like LED's, in that light also goes out at right angles
> like an LED. With those you get a good look at the ditch, cops won't
> need spotlights anymore.

Not sure what you're getting at? Beam pattern is more of a function of
reflector than light source. Can't you tell from where your shadow is
thrown where the beam is coming from?

[SMS]

Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>
>> Those aren't LEDs, they're HIDs--unless you happen to live an an Audi
>> infested neighborhood.
> --------
> Did a quick search on Nissan, and you're right they are HID. They sure
> act and look like LED's, in that light also goes out at right angles
> like an LED. With those you get a good look at the ditch, cops won't
> need spotlights anymore.

HID, not LED. LED's are poor light sources for headlights, though the
latest Cree LEDs are passable for bicycle lights. For headlights you'd
need to collimate a bunch of high power LEDs into a usable beam, and
spend a lot on heat sinking or other cooling.

The problem is that the laws regarding headlight intensity are often
written to specify the maximum in watts. This doesn't work with HID
lamps, which are very efficient. HID automobile lights are not only
annoying to bicyclists, but to other vehicles as well.

You can get HID bicycle lights as well, they've come way down in price.
They're not as obnoxiously bright as the automotive HID lamps.

The light isn't going out at right angles because of the bulb, it's the
lens, and it's intentional. As in bicycle lights, if you have enough
light to illuminate off to the side, it increases visibility and safety.
This design is annoying to oncoming traffic.

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

> Not sure what you're getting at? Beam pattern is more of a function of
> reflector than light source. Can't you tell from where your shadow is
> thrown where the beam is coming from?
-----------
not these lights. Sure they have
reflectors, but the light just goes
everywhere. When the front of the car,
with HID and as it over takes me, is
right next to me, my shadow is directly
to my right (if I'm pointed at 0
degrees, my shadow would be at 90
degrees), that's the problem. With
halogen car lights, if the car was right
to my side, I wouldn't be illuminated at
all. So it is impossible to tell if you
are out of the car's way, until they are
in front of you. The only daytime
equivalent is when the sun is setting,
and you see the car's shadow at a 90
degree angle, to your right, which can
be disorientating at times, but not as
bad as these HID lights.

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

> are you riding in an urban or rural environmennt ?
-----------
I ride in both, but the phenom is more
terrifying in a rural environment, as
there is no other ambient light.

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Jan 14, 1:08*am, Crescentius Vespasianus <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > Not sure what you're getting at? Beam pattern is more of a function of
> > reflector than light source. Can't you tell from where your shadow is
> > thrown where the beam is coming from?
>
> -----------
> not these lights. *Sure they have
> reflectors, but the light just goes
> everywhere. *When the front of the car,
> with HID and as it over takes me, is
> right next to me, my shadow is directly
> to my right (if I'm pointed at 0
> degrees, my shadow would be at 90
> degrees), that's the problem. *With
> halogen car lights, if the car was right
> to my side, I wouldn't be illuminated at
> all. *So it is impossible to tell if you
> are out of the car's way, until they are
> in front of you. *The only daytime
> equivalent is when the sun is setting,
> and you see the car's shadow at a 90
> degree angle, to your right, which can
> be disorientating at times, but not as
> bad as these HID lights.

ahhhh, I understand what you mean....nighttime I would go on some
hammers on the main roads downtown, fairly well lit, less potholes
better maintained, wider, fewer stoplights and almost no traffic; and
I've riden all night in the boonies coming back from some of my longer
rides. Downtown, it's like daylight but without the traffic- no
problem, just kept over when I heard them coming. In the boonies is a
bit of a different story, I once nearly got hit by someone who was
driving in the dark- pitch black- with headlights so dim that I
thought he was half a mile behind when he screeched his tires swerving
to avoid me just in time. I generally ride mid-lane at night in the
rural areas because of typical road conditions; not much traffic to
worry about and use the increasing illumination of headlights behind
me to shine the safe path on the usually broken roadside-. But beyond
that at night I half expect not to come home- I just rely on people
not to hit me. If traffic is virtually nil in the boonies you might
try riding in the oncoming lane- certainly less chance of getting
clipped from behind- and just move back over when you have a vehicle
coming towards you- but you wouldn't have any warning if the vehicle
coming from behind is law enforcement and that could cause some more
serious problems too.

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

> LEDs are just point sources of light. The beam is whatever the lenses
> make them into.
>
> LED headlights are still rare except on exotic cars. An efficient 1W
> LED costs about $4 and the cheaper LEDs are too difficult to cool.
> You're probably seeing aftermarket HID kits or fakes having high-power
> tungsten bulbs in blue glass. Factory HID headlights have an
> top-quality beam pattern.
------------
an earlier post said they were HID, and
I should done some google searches
before I posted, but they are HID. I
thought they were LED, because of the
super wide angle of the lights, but I
guess HID does that too. I don't know
if this is by design, or because HID is
just as hard to focus as LED is.

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

> ahhhh, I understand what you mean....nighttime I would go on some
> hammers on the main roads downtown, fairly well lit, less potholes
> better maintained, wider, fewer stoplights and almost no traffic; and
> I've riden all night in the boonies coming back from some of my longer
> rides. Downtown, it's like daylight but without the traffic- no
> problem, just kept over when I heard them coming. In the boonies is a
> bit of a different story, I once nearly got hit by someone who was
> driving in the dark- pitch black- with headlights so dim that I
> thought he was half a mile behind when he screeched his tires swerving
> to avoid me just in time. I generally ride mid-lane at night in the
> rural areas because of typical road conditions; not much traffic to
> worry about and use the increasing illumination of headlights behind
> me to shine the safe path on the usually broken roadside-. But beyond
> that at night I half expect not to come home- I just rely on people
> not to hit me. If traffic is virtually nil in the boonies you might
> try riding in the oncoming lane- certainly less chance of getting
> clipped from behind- and just move back over when you have a vehicle
> coming towards you- but you wouldn't have any warning if the vehicle
> coming from behind is law enforcement and that could cause some more
> serious problems too.
----------------
As you know it only takes one impaired
idiot to hit you, whether it's night or
day, but I just like the ambiance of
very few cars on the road. Where I live
(Arizona) there has been explosive
growth, and what use to be a rural ride
5 years ago, is now like an urban ride
in the daytime. So night time riding is
way to recapture how it use to be. I'm
not particularly fond of loading the
bike up on a car, to get to a rural
area, but occasionally I do it if I get
fed up enough. So night time riding,
usually early morning hours (4-5am start
in winter, 3-4 am start in summer), is a
way to ride with out much traffic from
my house. In an area, like here, where
there is explosive growth, there is 5
year lag, in upgrading the roads to
handle the new load. And what's sad,
there are roads, that use to be
perfectly safe, become downright
dangerous, until they rebuild the road,
and put a shoulder on it, for the bikes,
you really can't ride on it, unless you
have a death wish. So I'm constantly
changing my routes, as they add new
bikeable roads, and cross off old roads
with too much load. It makes it quite
interesting, you never ride the same
routes two years in a row.

[Zog The Undeniable]

Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:

> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
> searches before I posted, but they are HID. I thought they were LED,
> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does that
> too. I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just as hard
> to focus as LED is.

New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. They're quite unpleasant, but
Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
ugly cars a couple of years ago.

[still just me]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:58:12 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>The problem is that the laws regarding headlight intensity are often
>written to specify the maximum in watts. This doesn't work with HID
>lamps, which are very efficient. HID automobile lights are not only
>annoying to bicyclists, but to other vehicles as well.

No, just check with the auto manufacturers and the DOT folks that
approved them. There's no problem at all.

>You can get HID bicycle lights as well, they've come way down in price.
>They're not as obnoxiously bright as the automotive HID lamps.
>
>The light isn't going out at right angles because of the bulb, it's the
>lens, and it's intentional. As in bicycle lights, if you have enough
>light to illuminate off to the side, it increases visibility and safety.
>This design is annoying to oncoming traffic.

Oncoming traffic, traffic approaching from the rear, pretty much
traffic from any direction.

[Tom Sherman]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>
>> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
>> searches before I posted, but they are HID. I thought they were LED,
>> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does
>> that too. I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just
>> as hard to focus as LED is.
>
> New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. They're quite unpleasant, but
> Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
> ugly cars a couple of years ago.
>
Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.

This is what the front end of a car should look like:
<http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[landotter]

On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> > Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>
> >> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
> >> searches before I posted, but they are HID. I thought they were LED,
> >> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does
> >> that too. I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just
> >> as hard to focus as LED is.
>
> > New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. They're quite unpleasant, but
> > Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
> > ugly cars a couple of years ago.
>
> >
> Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
> that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
> Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.

You must have missed the 80s. European cars fared OK, but that was a
dark age for Detroit. I find the new Cadillacs, the sedans, to be
pretty cool looking, perhaps the most attractive since the 60s. Not a
big fan of the Escalades, though.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 14, 6:34*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> > Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>
> >> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
> >> searches before I posted, but they are HID. *I thought they were LED,
> >> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does
> >> that too. *I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just
> >> as hard to focus as LED is.
>
> > New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. *They're quite unpleasant, but
> > Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
> > ugly cars a couple of years ago.
>
> *>
> Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
> that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
> Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.
>
> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>

Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.

UGH!

[Michael Press]

In article <fmgv20$p5u$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> > Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> >
> >> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
> >> searches before I posted, but they are HID. I thought they were LED,
> >> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does
> >> that too. I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just
> >> as hard to focus as LED is.
> >
> > New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. They're quite unpleasant, but
> > Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
> > ugly cars a couple of years ago.
> >
> Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
> that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
> Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.

From about 1960-1962 Cadillac made a slab sided coach
that appeals to me. They evaded the horror show that
was the 1970's automobile. A few years ago they went to
the bulgemobile. Not pretty. Needs to be deflated. No,
I do not drive Cadillacs.

--
Michael Press

[Werehatrack]

My nominee for Ugliest Car Of The Past Decade is the Pontiac Aztek.
It looked like they'd taken a top slice of a particularly ugly
Renault, plopped it onto a slightly mashed-down Nissan pickup, and
concealed the wounds by grafting on bits of plastic cut from the sides
of surplus metro dustbins. I kept expecting to see half of a moldy
onion oozing out from under the panels.

My nominee for Dumbest Concept is the Chevy Avalanche, whose name is
synonymous with "what you get when you pile sh*t up so high that it
can't support its own weight."



--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Grolsch]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmgv20$p5u$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>>
>>> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
>>> searches before I posted, but they are HID. I thought they were LED,
>>> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does that
>>> too. I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just as hard
>>> to focus as LED is.
>>
>> New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. They're quite unpleasant, but
>> Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce ugly
>> cars a couple of years ago.
> >
> Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
> that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
> Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.
>
> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth

Well, you know, I have to give my vote to the MonteCarlo, the newer ones
with the NASCAR stickers on em. And just how many of them seem to be in
lookitme yellow. Next has to be that sin on wheels, the Hummer, all of them.

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> ...
>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>
>
> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> UGH!
>
Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?

Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.

On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".

Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
bodywork on it...

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 6:34*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
[...]
>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>
>
> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.

It's called a Frogeye Sprite. The car is actually mostly the same as an
MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end. The Midget had more
conventional bugeyes.

[A Muzi]

>>> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>>>> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
>>>> searches before I posted, but they are HID. I thought they were LED,
>>>> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does
>>>> that too. I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just
>>>> as hard to focus as LED is.

>> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>>> New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. They're quite unpleasant, but
>>> Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
>>> ugly cars a couple of years ago.

> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
>> that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
>> Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.
>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
> UGH!

Having owned both British roadsters and a Fiat with pop-up headlamps,
BMC at least made that one decision for the best.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-15, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>
>> UGH!
>>
> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?

You right that is a cute car.

> Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
> on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
> which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.
>
> On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".
>
> Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
> bodywork on it...

The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
coincidences.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 14, 9:51*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> ...
> >> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> >> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
> > Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> > like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> > designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> > game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> > UGH!
>
> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?

6-8 months of actually owning one was the usual cure.


>
> Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
> on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
> which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.


Just like an ox cart.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 5:44*am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 6:34*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> [...]
> >> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> >> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
> > Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> > like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> > designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> > game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> It's called a Frogeye Sprite.

During my servitude in the Limey Car owners club, I heard them
referred to mostly as "bugeye" rather than "frogeye".


> The car is actually mostly the same as an
> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end.

Not exactly. The later version of the Sprite had different, easier to
manufacture, body panels. As that version was brought to market, BMC
decided to 'revive' the MG Midget line (originally the MG-TA/TB/TC/TD)
and did so by re-badging the then current Sprite as the 'new' MG
Midget. Same awful car for more $$$$.


>The Midget had more
> conventional bugeyes.

???

[Tom Sherman]

Ben C? wrote:
> On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> [...]
>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>
>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> It's called a Frogeye Sprite. The car is actually mostly the same as an
> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end. The Midget had more
> conventional bugeyes.

I believe Frogeye was the common British name, while Bugeye was
preferred by the "Colonials".

The "Bugeye/Frogeye" AH Sprite was the Mark I, while the more
conventional looking AH Mark II Sprite and re-badged MG Midget came later.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:44:48 -0600, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:

>On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 6:34Â*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>[...]
>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
>It's called a Frogeye Sprite. The car is actually mostly the same as an
>MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end. The Midget had more
>conventional bugeyes.
Depends where you live. They're "bug-eyes" around here.
The original design was for retractable headlights but they were too
close to the ground to pass DOT/ highway traffic act - so rather than
totally redesigning THAT system they put on the "bumps".

The 1/4 eliptic springsmade them ride like a buckboard, and also
handle reasonably well (on smooth pavement).

I almost bought one when I was 18, but I couldn't get in. My previous
car was a comparably ROOMY Mini 850.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 5:50*am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2008-01-15, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> >>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
> >> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> >> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> >> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> >> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> >> UGH!
>
> > Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>
> You right that is a cute car.
>
> > Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
> > on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
> > which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.
>
> > On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".
>
> > Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
> > bodywork on it...
>
> The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
> associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
> other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
> compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
> coincidences.

The most effective solution was to park said BMC mechanical
abomination in an isolated area, pour 2+ gallons of petrol into the
engine compartment, interior and the 'boot' and apply the business end
of a Zippo. Call the insurance company in the morning and buy an
actual automobile the next day. ;-)

[A Muzi]

>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.

>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>> UGH!

> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?

Ben C wrote:
> You right that is a cute car.

> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
>> on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
>> which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.
>> On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".
>> Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
>> bodywork on it...

Ben C wrote:
> The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
> associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
> other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
> compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
> coincidences.

An engine without SU c.v. carburettors? feh.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom Sherman]

Ben C? wrote:
> On 2008-01-15, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>>
>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>>
>>> UGH!
>>>
>> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>
> You right that is a cute car.
>
>> Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
>> on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
>> which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.
>>
>> On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".
>>
>> Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
>> bodywork on it...
>
> The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
> associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
> other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
> compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
> coincidences.

Beyond that, one could replace all the Lucas electrics. However, the top
would still leak and be a PITA to use. The Armstrong lever shocks will
also leak, the springs will fatigue, the body will rust, etc, etc, etc.
I can not think of one major component on my Midget that did not need
repair, sometimes more than once (or twice, or...).

If I get a vintage 60's sports car, it will be a Honda S600/800 or a
Datsun Roadster, which are fundamentally sound, unlike anything from
BMC/British Leyland.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:50:35 -0600, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:

>On 2008-01-15, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>>
>>> UGH!
>>>
>> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>
>You right that is a cute car.
>
>> Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
>> on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
>> which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.
>>
>> On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".
>>
>> Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
>> bodywork on it...
>
>The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
>associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
>other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
>compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
>coincidences.
The more common conversion here in Canada was the Datsun 210 (1200 or
1300cc) (otherwise known as a "sunny")

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 5:44*am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 14, 6:34*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> [...]
>> >> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>> >> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>
>> > Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>> > like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>> > designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>> > game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>
>> It's called a Frogeye Sprite.
>
> During my servitude in the Limey Car owners club, I heard them
> referred to mostly as "bugeye" rather than "frogeye".

It might be an American thing. The word "bug" doesn't really exist in
traditional English English, at least not to mean "insect".

And here the "Limey Car owners club" was just known as "Britain".

The car obviously looks more like a frog.

http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/5703/130599/f/908348-AIRLIE-BEACH-Tree-frog--Rana-arb-rea-1.jpg

>> The car is actually mostly the same as an
>> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end.
>
> Not exactly. The later version of the Sprite had different, easier to
> manufacture, body panels. As that version was brought to market, BMC
> decided to 'revive' the MG Midget line (originally the MG-TA/TB/TC/TD)
> and did so by re-badging the then current Sprite as the 'new' MG
> Midget. Same awful car for more $$$$.

I didn't know the TA/TD etc. were called Midgets. What I know as a
Midget was probably a rebadged (and restyled) Sprite.

[A Muzi]

>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> [...]
>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.

>> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>> It's called a Frogeye Sprite.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> During my servitude in the Limey Car owners club, I heard them
> referred to mostly as "bugeye" rather than "frogeye".

> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> The car is actually mostly the same as an
>> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Not exactly. The later version of the Sprite had different, easier to
> manufacture, body panels. As that version was brought to market, BMC
> decided to 'revive' the MG Midget line (originally the MG-TA/TB/TC/TD)
> and did so by re-badging the then current Sprite as the 'new' MG
> Midget. Same awful car for more $$$$.

> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> The Midget had more
>> conventional bugeyes.

Ben's right:
http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccswoc/images/BCD2003/pages/MGMidget.html
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[A Muzi]

-snip British Roadsters-
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> The most effective solution was to park said BMC mechanical
> abomination in an isolated area, pour 2+ gallons of petrol into the
> engine compartment, interior and the 'boot' and apply the business end
> of a Zippo. Call the insurance company in the morning and buy an
> actual automobile the next day. ;-)

Alternately, they can be rolled over at speed.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[landotter]

On Jan 15, 6:18 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> > >> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
> > > Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> > > like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> > > designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> > > game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> > > UGH!
>
> > Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>
> 6-8 months of actually owning one was the usual cure.

Za-zing! I'd rather have a Delta 88 with a Bible in the rear window as
a daily driver than a 40 y/o British monstrosity.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 9:22*am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:18 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> ...
> > > >> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> > > >> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
> > > > Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> > > > like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> > > > designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> > > > game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> > > > UGH!
>
> > > Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>
> > 6-8 months of actually owning one was the usual cure.
>
> Za-zing! I'd rather have a Delta 88 with a Bible in the rear window as
> a daily driver

Hey, if the car won't get ya where yer going, the Good Book will,
right? ;-)


> than a 40 y/o British monstrosity.

The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
it all!!.

[Tom Sherman]

landotter wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:18 am, Ozark Bicycle
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>>> UGH!
>>> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>> 6-8 months of actually owning one was the usual cure.
>
> Za-zing! I'd rather have a Delta 88 with a Bible in the rear window as
> a daily driver than a 40 y/o British monstrosity.

Ugh! I have never seen a traditional, full size, post WW2 to 1990's US
car that did not turn me off. Huge bodies with terrible space
efficiency, deliberate ugliness to the styling, numb steering, floppy,
uncontrolled ride, poor, fade prone brakes, and in the 1970's, engines
with no power, poor throttle respose and excessive thirst. YUCK! I would
rather drive a Yugo [1].

I may have to find myself a used Miata for a toy - what the MGB should
have evolved into.

[1] Fiat 128 in pre Tito life.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[landotter]

On Jan 15, 9:56 am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:22 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 6:18 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 14, 9:51 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> > > > >> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
> > > > > Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> > > > > like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> > > > > designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> > > > > game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> > > > > UGH!
>
> > > > Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>
> > > 6-8 months of actually owning one was the usual cure.
>
> > Za-zing! I'd rather have a Delta 88 with a Bible in the rear window as
> > a daily driver
>
> Hey, if the car won't get ya where yer going, the Good Book will,
> right? ;-)

Horus is my co-pilot!

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
> heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
> it all!!.
>
Ozark Bicycle has no taste if he thinks the "Bugeye" and "Spriget" are ugly.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 10:35*am, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> >>>> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
> >>>> searches before I posted, but they are HID. *I thought they were LED,
> >>>> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does
> >>>> that too. *I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just
> >>>> as hard to focus as LED is.
> >> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> >>> New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. *They're quite unpleasant, but
> >>> Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
> >>> ugly cars a couple of years ago.
> > *Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
> >> that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
> >> Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.
> >> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> >> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> > like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> > designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> > game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
> > UGH!
>
> Having owned both British roadsters

TR-7/8?

> and a Fiat with pop-up headlamps,

X1/9?

I had a different Fiat Group "car" with pop-ups. They would often go
upand down when driving over bumps. I had to work over all those lousy
connectors and the fuse holders to cure the problem.


> BMC at least made that one decision for the best.

IIRC, the headlamps in the original Sprite design were going to be
mechanically (lever) actuated. Kinda hard to screw that up, 'tho BMC
would find a way.

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>...
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>> UGH!
>
> Having owned both British roadsters and a Fiat with pop-up headlamps,
> BMC at least made that one decision for the best.

X1-9?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:35:59 -0600, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>>>> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>>>>> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
>>>>> searches before I posted, but they are HID. I thought they were LED,
>>>>> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does
>>>>> that too. I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just
>>>>> as hard to focus as LED is.
>
>>> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>>>> New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. They're quite unpleasant, but
>>>> Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
>>>> ugly cars a couple of years ago.
>
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
>>> that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
>>> Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.
>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
>Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>> UGH!
>
>Having owned both British roadsters and a Fiat with pop-up headlamps,
>BMC at least made that one decision for the best.
Fix It Again Tony!!!!
I had a 128 Sport with a bomber generator and 8 golf cart batteries.
It was more reliable (just) than the original 1300cc OHC "engine" that
it came from Italy with.

The 850 Mini was more reliable than the FIAT - and it didn't rust as
fast or as badly either. But it DID rust.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Zog The Undeniable]

A Muzi wrote:

> Having owned both British roadsters and a Fiat with pop-up headlamps,
> BMC at least made that one decision for the best.

Not much ever goes wrong with Mazda MX-5/Miata pop-ups, although they
were from an altogether better-built vehicle. They were abandoned on
the Mk2 version for reasons of cost, weight and pedestrian safety, and I
think the last cars to have pop-ups were the BMW 8-series and maybe a
Ferrari. An open pop-up inevitably has a fairly sharp leading edge.

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:01:36 -0600, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>>> UGH!
>
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>
>Ben C wrote:
>> You right that is a cute car.
>
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
>>> on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
>>> which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.
>>> On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".
>>> Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
>>> bodywork on it...
>
>Ben C wrote:
>> The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
>> associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
>> other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
>> compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
>> coincidences.
>
>An engine without SU c.v. carburettors? feh.

I put a single barrel carb off a 170 cu inch Falcon on a 1300 Austin
America engine in a mini. Geared for 13" tires and running 10s, it was
a SERIOUS contender off the line. The boys who owned it when I did the
conversion took a full set of 4 tires off of it in a week and made a
few Z28s and a LOT of 240Zs look twice!!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Marcus Coles]

A Muzi wrote:
>
> An engine without SU c.v. carburettors? feh.

A few decades ago I remember seeing a bright yellow one with some
serious hood (bonnet) and rear fender (mudguard) modifications and a
Volvo drivetrain complete with SU carbs.


Marcus

[David L. Johnson]

A Muzi wrote:

> An engine without SU c.v. carburettors? feh.

Those were a curse. I spent hours listening to them through a piece of
tubing, to try to "tune" them.

There is a lot to complain about with modern cars, but carburators of
any sort, _especially_ SUs, I will not miss.

--

David L. Johnson

The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 12:05*pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >> [...]
> >>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> >>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
> >> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> >>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> >>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> >>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
> >> It's called a Frogeye Sprite.
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > During my servitude in the Limey Car owners club, I heard them
> > referred to mostly as "bugeye" rather than "frogeye".
> > *Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> >> The car is actually mostly the same as an
> >> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end.
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Not exactly. The later version of the Sprite had different, easier to
> > manufacture, body panels. As that version was brought to market, BMC
> > decided to 'revive' the MG Midget line (originally the MG-TA/TB/TC/TD)
> > and did so by re-badging the then current Sprite as the 'new' MG
> > Midget. Same awful car for more $$$$.
> > *Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> >> The Midget had more
> >> conventional bugeyes.
>
> Ben's right:http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccswoc/images/BCD2003/pages/MGMidget.html
> --

Not exactly. The MG Midget in that link is a re-badged, not a re-
bodied, Sprite. IOW, that vintage Sprite had pretty much the same
body, no bug-eyes anywhere to be found.

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> [...]
>>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
>>> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>> It's called a Frogeye Sprite.
>
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> During my servitude in the Limey Car owners club, I heard them
>> referred to mostly as "bugeye" rather than "frogeye".
>
>> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>> The car is actually mostly the same as an
>>> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end.
>
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Not exactly. The later version of the Sprite had different, easier to
>> manufacture, body panels. As that version was brought to market, BMC
>> decided to 'revive' the MG Midget line (originally the MG-TA/TB/TC/TD)
>> and did so by re-badging the then current Sprite as the 'new' MG
>> Midget. Same awful car for more $$$$.
>
>> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>> The Midget had more
>>> conventional bugeyes.
>
> Ben's right:
> http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccswoc/images/BCD2003/pages/MGMidget.html

The later US Midgets with "5-mph" bumpers did not look so "bugeyed".
This looks like my car, except without the rust:
<http://www.americandreamcars.com/1975mgmidgetcnvt091504.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> -snip British Roadsters-
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> The most effective solution was to park said BMC mechanical
>> abomination in an isolated area, pour 2+ gallons of petrol into the
>> engine compartment, interior and the 'boot' and apply the business end
>> of a Zippo. Call the insurance company in the morning and buy an
>> actual automobile the next day. ;-)
>
> Alternately, they can be rolled over at speed.

From experience?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 12:05*pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> >> [...]
>> >>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>> >>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>> >> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> >>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>> >>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>> >>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>> >>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>> >> It's called a Frogeye Sprite.
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > During my servitude in the Limey Car owners club, I heard them
>> > referred to mostly as "bugeye" rather than "frogeye".
>> > *Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> >> The car is actually mostly the same as an
>> >> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end.
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > Not exactly. The later version of the Sprite had different, easier to
>> > manufacture, body panels. As that version was brought to market, BMC
>> > decided to 'revive' the MG Midget line (originally the MG-TA/TB/TC/TD)
>> > and did so by re-badging the then current Sprite as the 'new' MG
>> > Midget. Same awful car for more $$$$.
>> > *Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>> >> The Midget had more
>> >> conventional bugeyes.
>>
>> Ben's right:http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccswoc/images/BCD2003/pages/MGMidget.html
>> --
>
> Not exactly. The MG Midget in that link is a re-badged, not a re-
> bodied, Sprite. IOW, that vintage Sprite had pretty much the same
> body, no bug-eyes anywhere to be found.

I think all Andrew is saying I'm right about is that that car might be
informally if confusingly described as bug-eyed.

The later Sprite, that looks just like that Midget apart from the
badges, was just called a Sprite, not a Frogeye Sprite, lacking the
distinctively ranine appearance of its predecessor.

You have put me right on the chronology. I was under the mistaken
impression that the Frogeye Sprite was a contemporary of the MG Midget.
But there was only ever one Sprite at a time, and later Sprites, which
weren't frogeyed, were also available as Midgets.

[A Muzi]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 12:05 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>>> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>>>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>>>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>>>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>>>> It's called a Frogeye Sprite.
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> During my servitude in the Limey Car owners club, I heard them
>>>> referred to mostly as "bugeye" rather than "frogeye".
>>>> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>>>> The car is actually mostly the same as an
>>>>> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end.
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> Not exactly. The later version of the Sprite had different, easier to
>>>> manufacture, body panels. As that version was brought to market, BMC
>>>> decided to 'revive' the MG Midget line (originally the MG-TA/TB/TC/TD)
>>>> and did so by re-badging the then current Sprite as the 'new' MG
>>>> Midget. Same awful car for more $$$$.
>>>> Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>>>> The Midget had more
>>>>> conventional bugeyes.
>>> Ben's right:http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccswoc/images/BCD2003/pages/MGMidget.html
>>> --
>> Not exactly. The MG Midget in that link is a re-badged, not a re-
>> bodied, Sprite. IOW, that vintage Sprite had pretty much the same
>> body, no bug-eyes anywhere to be found.
>
> I think all Andrew is saying I'm right about is that that car might be
> informally if confusingly described as bug-eyed.
>
> The later Sprite, that looks just like that Midget apart from the
> badges, was just called a Sprite, not a Frogeye Sprite, lacking the
> distinctively ranine appearance of its predecessor.
>
> You have put me right on the chronology. I was under the mistaken
> impression that the Frogeye Sprite was a contemporary of the MG Midget.
> But there was only ever one Sprite at a time, and later Sprites, which
> weren't frogeyed, were also available as Midgets.

I could not find a Midget with lamps in the bonnet but I did find this
synopsis for midgetphiles:
http://www.bmh-ltd.com/midget.htm
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:16:37 -0600, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:

>On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 12:05Â*pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> >> [...]
>>> >>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>> >>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>> >> Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>> >>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>> >>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>> >>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>> >>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>> >> It's called a Frogeye Sprite.
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> > During my servitude in the Limey Car owners club, I heard them
>>> > referred to mostly as "bugeye" rather than "frogeye".
>>> > Â*Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>> >> The car is actually mostly the same as an
>>> >> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end.
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> > Not exactly. The later version of the Sprite had different, easier to
>>> > manufacture, body panels. As that version was brought to market, BMC
>>> > decided to 'revive' the MG Midget line (originally the MG-TA/TB/TC/TD)
>>> > and did so by re-badging the then current Sprite as the 'new' MG
>>> > Midget. Same awful car for more $$$$.
>>> > Â*Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>> >> The Midget had more
>>> >> conventional bugeyes.
>>>
>>> Ben's right:http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccswoc/images/BCD2003/pages/MGMidget.html
>>> --
>>
>> Not exactly. The MG Midget in that link is a re-badged, not a re-
>> bodied, Sprite. IOW, that vintage Sprite had pretty much the same
>> body, no bug-eyes anywhere to be found.
>
>I think all Andrew is saying I'm right about is that that car might be
>informally if confusingly described as bug-eyed.
>
>The later Sprite, that looks just like that Midget apart from the
>badges, was just called a Sprite, not a Frogeye Sprite, lacking the
>distinctively ranine appearance of its predecessor.
>
>You have put me right on the chronology. I was under the mistaken
>impression that the Frogeye Sprite was a contemporary of the MG Midget.
>But there was only ever one Sprite at a time, and later Sprites, which
>weren't frogeyed, were also available as Midgets.

There were Bugeys, there were Midgets, and there were "spridgets"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tom Sherman]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <fmgv20$p5u$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>>> Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
>>>
>>>> an earlier post said they were HID, and I should done some google
>>>> searches before I posted, but they are HID. I thought they were LED,
>>>> because of the super wide angle of the lights, but I guess HID does
>>>> that too. I don't know if this is by design, or because HID is just
>>>> as hard to focus as LED is.
>>> New Audis use a row of LED sidelights. They're quite unpleasant, but
>>> Audi (along with BMW) seemed to make a conscious decision to produce
>>> ugly cars a couple of years ago.
>> >
>> Actually, many manufacturers have been producing consciously ugly cars
>> that last few years - particularly cross-over SUVs, Chrysler/Dodge and
>> Cadillac. The last time cars were uglier was the 1970's.
>
> From about 1960-1962 Cadillac made a slab sided coach
> that appeals to me. They evaded the horror show that
> was the 1970's automobile. A few years ago they went to
> the bulgemobile. Not pretty. Needs to be deflated. No,
> I do not drive Cadillacs.
>
The worst was the "broken-back" Seville of the early 1980's. The
contemporary Cadillac SRX looks like a hearse:
<http://www.diariomotor.com/imagenes/cadillac-srx-2007-1.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[A Muzi]

>> -snip British Roadsters-
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> The most effective solution was to park said BMC mechanical
>>> abomination in an isolated area, pour 2+ gallons of petrol into the
>>> engine compartment, interior and the 'boot' and apply the business end
>>> of a Zippo. Call the insurance company in the morning and buy an
>>> actual automobile the next day. ;-)

> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> Alternately, they can be rolled over at speed.

Tom Sherman wrote:
> From experience?

'course! Oh, to be young...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:01:51 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

>Ben C? wrote:
>> On 2008-01-15, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>>>
>>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>>>
>>>> UGH!
>>>>
>>> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?
>>
>> You right that is a cute car.
>>
>>> Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will agree
>>> on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the handling,
>>> which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.
>>>
>>> On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".
>>>
>>> Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
>>> bodywork on it...
>>
>> The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
>> associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
>> other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
>> compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
>> coincidences.
>
>Beyond that, one could replace all the Lucas electrics. However, the top
>would still leak and be a PITA to use. The Armstrong lever shocks will
>also leak, the springs will fatigue, the body will rust, etc, etc, etc.
>I can not think of one major component on my Midget that did not need
>repair, sometimes more than once (or twice, or...).
>
>If I get a vintage 60's sports car, it will be a Honda S600/800 or a
>Datsun Roadster, which are fundamentally sound, unlike anything from
>BMC/British Leyland.

Spridget with Spax Coilovers on a link suspension with a 4ke Starlet
drivetrain makes a nice retro sportscar that goes and handles.
I believe the bodyshells are available in repro like the B.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-16, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Ben C? wrote:
>> On 2008-01-15, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning "Sprigets".
>>>
>>> Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
>>> bodywork on it...
>>
>> The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
>> associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
>> other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
>> compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
>> coincidences.
>
> Beyond that, one could replace all the Lucas electrics. However, the top
> would still leak and be a PITA to use. The Armstrong lever shocks will
> also leak, the springs will fatigue, the body will rust, etc, etc, etc.
> I can not think of one major component on my Midget that did not need
> repair, sometimes more than once (or twice, or...).
>
> If I get a vintage 60's sports car, it will be a Honda S600/800 or a
> Datsun Roadster, which are fundamentally sound, unlike anything from
> BMC/British Leyland.

I dunno. Although hard to believe today, Japanese cars from the 60s and
70s were pretty shoddy.

[A Muzi]

>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.

>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>>> UGH!

>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Bah. The Sprite Mark I is kawaii. How can one not like the smiling face?

> Ben C? wrote:
>> You right that is a cute car.

>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Having owned a later version of the same car (MG Midget), I will
>>> agree on all the other derisions being accurate, except for the
>>> handling, which was fine as long as the surface was not too bumpy.
>>> On second thought, "unreliable" is an understatement concerning
>>> "Sprigets".
>>> Now if we could just shrink a Honda S2000 slightly and put "Bugeye"
>>> bodywork on it...

> Ben C? wrote:
>> The accepted wisdom was to put a 1.2 litre Toyota engine and probably
>> associated gearbox into one's Midget. You use a propshaft from some
>> other car, I forget which, possibly after having sawn it off. The
>> compatibility of all these parts is just one of those fortuitous
>> coincidences.

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Beyond that, one could replace all the Lucas electrics. However, the top
> would still leak and be a PITA to use. The Armstrong lever shocks will
> also leak, the springs will fatigue, the body will rust, etc, etc, etc.
> I can not think of one major component on my Midget that did not need
> repair, sometimes more than once (or twice, or...).
>
> If I get a vintage 60's sports car, it will be a Honda S600/800 or a
> Datsun Roadster, which are fundamentally sound, unlike anything from
> BMC/British Leyland.

Armstrongs! My left front wheel and a good chunk of the A-arms went past
my MG as it spun around on 3 wheels. That's typical of BMC 'fond
remebrances'. Well, that and the broken big-end bolts. And the chronic
electrical shorts of linen-wrap wire. And the stuck contacts on the
clicker fuel pump. and .. well, you know the rest.

Francis Bollag has a Mazda Miyata which is about what an MGB would have
been with Japanese engineering.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[David L. Johnson]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Beyond that, one could replace all the Lucas electrics.

I was told that the reason Brits drank warm beer is that Lucas made
refrigerators.

> However, the top
> would still leak and be a PITA to use.

They never got those right. Leaks you have to live with, but at least
you should be able to put it up in under an hour.

> The Armstrong lever shocks will
> also leak, the springs will fatigue,

Shocks on British cars are just for show. I did replace the springs on
my Triumph, and it actually handled a lot better.

the body will rust,

But Bondo doesn't rust.

> If I get a vintage 60's sports car, it will be a Honda S600/800 or a
> Datsun Roadster, which are fundamentally sound, unlike anything from
> BMC/British Leyland.
>
Those did look nice. I almost bought a Datsun instead of my Triumph,
but the guy wanted too much. Not my best decision.

--

David L. Johnson

The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.

[A Muzi]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Ugh! I have never seen a traditional, full size, post WW2 to 1990's US
> car that did not turn me off. Huge bodies with terrible space
> efficiency, deliberate ugliness to the styling, numb steering, floppy,
> uncontrolled ride, poor, fade prone brakes, and in the 1970's, engines
> with no power, poor throttle respose and excessive thirst. YUCK! I would
> rather drive a Yugo -snip-

Tom, if you're in town on a summer day, borrow my '65 Corvair Corsa 140
convertible.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[landotter]

On Jan 15, 7:12 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
> > heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
> > it all!!.
>
> Ozark Bicycle has no taste if he thinks the "Bugeye" and "Spriget" are ugly.

Apparently I have no taste as well. I like the old vintage Japanese
cars better. It's the best reason to visit this buckle of the bible
belt, the Lane Museum! That and the pulled pork shoulder! Prayse
Jaysusuh!

http://lanemotormuseum.org/

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 7:12*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
> > heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
> > it all!!.
>
> Ozark Bicycle has no taste if he thinks the "Bugeye" and "Spriget" are ugly.
>

When your head is as far up your ass as yours is, Sherman, you
naturally mistake ****e for ice cream.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 7:15*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ben C? wrote:
> > On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > [...]
> >>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
> >>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>
> >> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
> >> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
> >> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
> >> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>
> > It's called a Frogeye Sprite. The car is actually mostly the same as an
> > MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end. The Midget had more
> > conventional bugeyes.
>
> I believe Frogeye was the common British name, while Bugeye was
> preferred by the "Colonials".
>
> The "Bugeye/Frogeye" AH Sprite was the Mark I, while the more
> conventional looking AH Mark II Sprite and re-badged MG Midget came later.
>

Ah, the age of Wikipedia; makes a moron try to pass as a maven.

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-16, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Ben C? wrote:
>> On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> [...]
>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>>
>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>
>> It's called a Frogeye Sprite. The car is actually mostly the same as an
>> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end. The Midget had more
>> conventional bugeyes.
>
> I believe Frogeye was the common British name, while Bugeye was
> preferred by the "Colonials".

That was the conclusion I was coming to. Americans probably can't
pronounce the word "frog", or don't know what one is.

I think you also call the VW Beetle a "Bug".

[It's Chris]

From: sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com (Tom*Sherman)

>I believe Frogeye was the common
>British name, while Bugeye was >preferred by the "Colonials".
>The "Bugeye/Frogeye" AH Sprite was the
>Mark I, while the more conventional
>looking AH Mark II Sprite and re-badged
>MG Midget came later.
>--
>Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland
>Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately
>makes failures of all people."
>- A. Derleth

"Colonials"? Excuse me?

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[Ben C]

On 2008-01-16, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> http://www.mgcars.org.uk/mgccswoc/images/BCD2003/pages/MGMidget.html
>
> The later US Midgets with "5-mph" bumpers did not look so "bugeyed".
> This looks like my car, except without the rust:
><http://www.americandreamcars.com/1975mgmidgetcnvt091504.jpg>.

We got the rubber bumpers over here too, thanks to your American
legislation. Well done, you killed the MG Midget.

[A Muzi]

>> ...
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>> UGH!
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> Having owned both British roadsters and a Fiat with pop-up headlamps,
>> BMC at least made that one decision for the best.

Tom Sherman wrote:
> X1-9?

Naturally! A good example of emotion as a poor tool for decision making.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 15, 7:12 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>> The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
>>> heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
>>> it all!!.
>> Ozark Bicycle has no taste if he thinks the "Bugeye" and "Spriget" are ugly.
>>
>
> When your head is as far up your ass as yours is, Sherman, you
> naturally mistake ****e for ice cream.
>
Since his boast that I would insult him more, the count is 9 gratuitous
insults by Ozark Bicycle towards me, to none by me towards Ozark Bicycle.

Someone is not doing too well in the self control department.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 15, 7:15 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Ben C? wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-15, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 14, 6:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> [...]
>>>>> This is what the front end of a car should look like:
>>>>> <http://128.83.80.200/taco/bugeye.jpg>.
>>>> Ah, yes, the "Bugeye" Sprite; it accelerated like a moped and handled
>>>> like an ox cart. That ugly, unreliable, dreadful POS was originally
>>>> designed to have 'retracting' headlights, but BMC decided, late in the
>>>> game, to take the cheap way out and just leave them fixed.
>>> It's called a Frogeye Sprite. The car is actually mostly the same as an
>>> MG Midget but with the frog-eyed front end. The Midget had more
>>> conventional bugeyes.
>> I believe Frogeye was the common British name, while Bugeye was
>> preferred by the "Colonials".
>>
>> The "Bugeye/Frogeye" AH Sprite was the Mark I, while the more
>> conventional looking AH Mark II Sprite and re-badged MG Midget came later.
>>
>
> Ah, the age of Wikipedia; makes a moron try to pass as a maven.
>
For your information, I own a 1975 MG Midget with the "baby buggy" 5-mph
bumpers and 1.5L Triumph engine - what I posted was off the top of my
head. The Midget has been garaged for the last 18 years, as it would
cost more to fix up than it is worth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 8:12*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:

<snipped>
>
> >> The "Bugeye/Frogeye" AH Sprite was the Mark I, while the more
> >> conventional looking AH Mark II Sprite and re-badged MG Midget came later.
>
> > Ah, the age of Wikipedia; makes a moron try to pass as a maven.
>
> For your information, I own a 1975 MG Midget with the "baby buggy" 5-mph
> bumpers and 1.5L Triumph engine

Oh, Geez..... :-(

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and
remove all doubt." - A. Lincoln

<snip>

> The Midget has been garaged for the last 18 years, as it would
> cost more to fix up than it is worth.


So, it needs a battery and tires? ;-)

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 8:16*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 7:12 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> >>> The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
> >>> heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
> >>> it all!!.
> >> Ozark Bicycle has no taste if he thinks the "Bugeye" and "Spriget" are ugly.
>
> > When your head is as far up your ass as yours is, Sherman, you
> > naturally mistake ****e for ice cream.
>
> Since his boast that I would insult him more, the count is 9 gratuitous
> insults by Ozark Bicycle towards me, to none by me towards Ozark Bicycle.
>
> Someone is not doing too well in the self control department.
>

Are you really this much of an idiot, or is this just an act?

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:12 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>>>> The "Bugeye/Frogeye" AH Sprite was the Mark I, while the more
>>>> conventional looking AH Mark II Sprite and re-badged MG Midget came later.
>>> Ah, the age of Wikipedia; makes a moron try to pass as a maven.
>
>> For your information, I own a 1975 MG Midget with the "baby buggy" 5-mph
>> bumpers and 1.5L Triumph engine
>
> Oh, Geez..... :-(
>
Fun car, except for the maintenance issues and sitting beside the road
waiting for the tow truck.
>
> "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and
> remove all doubt." - A. Lincoln
>
> <snip>
>
>> The Midget has been garaged for the last 18 years, as it would
>> cost more to fix up than it is worth.
>
>
> So, it needs a battery and tires? ;-)
>
Actually, someone else drove it some distance with a cooling problem, so
it needs a rebuilt engine and considerable bodywork. I would think $6 to
8K would get it in good enough condition for me to sell it for $3 to $4k. :(

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 15, 8:16 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 7:12 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
>>>>> heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
>>>>> it all!!.
>>>> Ozark Bicycle has no taste if he thinks the "Bugeye" and "Spriget" are ugly.
>>> When your head is as far up your ass as yours is, Sherman, you
>>> naturally mistake ****e for ice cream.
>> Since his boast that I would insult him more, the count is 9 gratuitous
>> insults by Ozark Bicycle towards me, to none by me towards Ozark Bicycle.
>>
>> Someone is not doing too well in the self control department.
>>
>
> Are you really this much of an idiot, or is this just an act?
>
Keep digging!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 9:00*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 8:12 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
> >>>> The "Bugeye/Frogeye" AH Sprite was the Mark I, while the more
> >>>> conventional looking AH Mark II Sprite and re-badged MG Midget came later.
> >>> Ah, the age of Wikipedia; makes a moron try to pass as a maven.
>
> >> For your information, I own a 1975 MG Midget with the "baby buggy" 5-mph
> >> bumpers and 1.5L Triumph engine
>
> > Oh, Geez..... :-(
>
> *>
> Fun car, except for the maintenance issues and sitting beside the road
> waiting for the tow truck.


Absolutely fantastic car! It would be even better if it weren't ugly
(gotta love dem bumpers!), unreliable, underpowered and gifted with
the road manners of an oxcart.


>
> > "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and
> > remove all doubt." - A. Lincoln
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> The Midget has been garaged for the last 18 years, as it would
> >> cost more to fix up than it is worth.
>
> > So, it needs a battery and tires? ;-)
>
> Actually, someone else drove it some distance with a cooling problem, so
> it needs a rebuilt engine and considerable bodywork. I would think $6 to
> 8K would get it in good enough condition for me to sell it for $3 to $4k. :(
>

Even at $3/gal, a little carefully distributed petrol and a Bic
lighter will solve your problems inexpensively. And, make the world a
better place, in the bargain.

[A Muzi]

-snip cars-
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Actually, someone else drove it some distance with a cooling problem, so
> it needs a rebuilt engine and considerable bodywork. I would think $6 to
> 8K would get it in good enough condition for me to sell it for $3 to
> $4k. :(

Or, after several thousand dollars and a winter's worth of evenings in
shop time, you could take it out one fine day and wreck it instead!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 15, 9:00*pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 8:16 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>> On Jan 15, 7:12 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>>>> The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
> >>>>> heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
> >>>>> it all!!.
> >>>> Ozark Bicycle has no taste if he thinks the "Bugeye" and "Spriget" are ugly.
> >>> When your head is as far up your ass as yours is, Sherman, you
> >>> naturally mistake ****e for ice cream.
> >> Since his boast that I would insult him more, the count is 9 gratuitous
> >> insults by Ozark Bicycle towards me, to none by me towards Ozark Bicycle.
>
> >> Someone is not doing too well in the self control department.
>
> > Are you really this much of an idiot, or is this just an act?
>
> Keep digging!
>

Not just your everyday idiot; you're a delusional idiot.

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 15, 9:00 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 8:16 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 15, 7:12 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>> The Sprite (and later Sprite/Midget) monstrosity was particularly
>>>>>>> heinous. Ugly, slow, uncomfortable, unreliable, poorly built - it had
>>>>>>> it all!!.
>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle has no taste if he thinks the "Bugeye" and "Spriget" are ugly.
>>>>> When your head is as far up your ass as yours is, Sherman, you
>>>>> naturally mistake ****e for ice cream.
>>>> Since his boast that I would insult him more, the count is 9 gratuitous
>>>> insults by Ozark Bicycle towards me, to none by me towards Ozark Bicycle.
>>>> Someone is not doing too well in the self control department.
>>> Are you really this much of an idiot, or is this just an act?
>> Keep digging!
>>
>
> N