What's the Story - side marker lamps on the TR4A, TR250 and TR5 ?

[Bfg]

Had they been a detail of a 1920's or 30's car such as the Triumph Gloria ..with its winged bonnet mascot, they they might have been in keeping so to speak.

But, to be perfectly honest.. they appear a design incongruity for either Triumph, Michelotti, or any sports car.  Similarly they don't sit well with the hippie fashions of the mid-1960's or to any obvious contemporary style ..whether in line with Triumph's saloon-car range, nor as a response to a similar feature of a competitive marque. They are indifferent to any other design feature on these particular model of car,  or to their badges.  And If I look at a mid-60's Shelby Mustang, a Cobra, a GTO, or Corvette I don't even see side-marker / repeater-lamps ..so just how did they get passed Triumph's bean-counters ? 

I'm not objecting to them, nor am I saying they are a particularly exotic detail, but they are undoubtedly.. an interesting objet d'art.  And to me at least - a mystery. 

So I'm simply wondering if there is an interesting story behind their design and adoption.?   

.

And did they then try to disguise them ?

 

.

.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Bfg

[Hamish]

My guess would be overseas market requirements eg usa. 
 

many designs altered to comply there. MG plastic bumpers also come to mind. 

[openroad]

I agree , they seem over exotic for a British sixties car, But a thing of Beauty. 

And I personally think that they Look Great.

Sorry no story on the design origination, but most likely the Italian Influence. 

Conrad.

[Bfg]

I see no precedent for their being legally required, nor their flamboyance being a style, from the US.

And Michelotti (fairly representative of the Italian styles) were pushing for smooth graceful curves with little or no adornment. The Italia of 1960's for example had very simple round side repeaters that wouldn't look out of place on a 21st century car.   Triumph's 1964 Fury concept reflected the Italian 'influence'.

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Bfg

[Lebro]

Time to update your signature Pete ?    "Looking to buy a TR4A"     

Bob.

[Bfg]

tomorrow Bob, tomorrow

[Tony_C]

Good question Pete, and straight up answer is that I don’t know.... But, surely this is just a repeat play on the age old conundrum faced by manufacturers when they introduce a new model that is, to look at anyway, exactly the same as the previous version it is superseding; ‘Joe Public’ largely would not know what ‘irs’ stood for nor would they crawl under to check axles (absolutely not in the US of A)... Only way to get most folks to shell out for latest model would be to cheaply differentiate it from the ‘old model’....Those side lights ticked all the boxes..

A wider grill (became known as the ‘Dollar Grin’ for obvious reasons) previously worked brilliantly for Triumph in shifting so many more 3a’s compared to the virtually same but so much ‘less desirable’ 3!?....... bet they considered that again but the side lights more compelling this time round?

Land Rovers never seemed to change over 50 years or whatever of production but, they kept selling new models with slightly different grill spacing 

Jaguar also come readily to mind with any ‘extended’ model getting similar superficial tweaks

 

[boxofbits]

I actually like the feature. It may have been a safety consideration which made the TR4a/5 more visible from the side view, though this was not necessarily carried forward across the Triumph  range.
 

An side indicator repeater lens was fitted to the TR6 also.

Kevin

[Don H.]

US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards mandated side marker lights from the 1968 model year onward (along with a lot of other changes that had big and lasting effects on car design and engineering).  In the early years of that regulation there were all kinds of different approaches taken by various manufacturers.

My guess is this was Triumph's solution to that problem.

[stuart]

9 hours ago, Don H. said:

US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards mandated side marker lights from the 1968 model year onward (along with a lot of other changes that had big and lasting effects on car design and engineering).  In the early years of that regulation there were all kinds of different approaches taken by various manufacturers.

My guess is this was Triumph's solution to that problem.

Except the side indicator/marker lights were introduced at start of 4a production in mid 1965.

Stuart.

[Don H.]

6 hours ago, stuart said:

Except the side indicator/marker lights were introduced at start of 4a production in mid 1965.

Stuart.

True.   How far in advance did makers start implementing changes?  My 1966 Ford Galaxie 500XL Convertible had hazard flashers -- a toggle switch in the glovebox.  That was an option that year, as hazard light flashers didn't become mandatory until the 1968 FMVSS legislation.  Ford were probably getting experience with them prior to rollout.

Hard to imagine Triumph (no matter what corporate structure) spent a penny on something until they had to.  I'm still betting there was some regulatory requirement in an important market (which would have to be the US, yes?) that mandated a side marker lamp height/visibility/etc that was met by those nifty lights.  

I was a big fan of them on my TR250 back in the late 1970s.  I still like 'em.

[stuart]

Its highly possible as the US was still their biggest market at that time that they would have got wind of impending regs especially as I would have thought congress would take quite a while to pass the laws through.

Stuart.

[Tom Fremont]

The parking lights of the '250/5 are lovely at dusk. By then the rear wings had them too, and in the US the fronts were not repeaters but parkers so both bulbs shone. Eight in total round the body.

I rather like the flashers so wired them accordingly during the makeover of my red one, fitting clear lenses on the front. I do miss the parking light effect though ( down to six total ).

Tom

Edited March 9, 2021 by Tom Fremont

[Bleednipple]

I'm not aware that side repeaters were a legal requirement in any countries in the 1960s, instead I think they were something seen as desirable just because it was a modern innovation, highly visible to the customer and those he wanted to impress, and could be added to a model at little extra cost. Having said that, I have a UK import 1963 Alfa that had side repeaters omitted for the UK market, I assume as a way of shaving off a little bit of money in an attempt to make them price-competitive (to little effect as in the early sixties Alfas were still Jaguar money).

To me, the repeaters on the TR4A improve the look of the car from the front, but are slightly incongruous bling from the side. (I'm sure there are those with the completely opposite view.)

But their most important function is to make me look inscrutably wise when instantly identifying a TR model to a youngling or other non-initiate.

Nigel

[james christie]

I believe that it was the Italians who initiated the requirements for a repeater indicator to be seen from the side, sometime in the late sixties, which was latterly incorporated into EU regs

james

[saffrontr]

Here's an image from the front page of an early 60's Standard Triumph Review magazine showing an Italian market TR4 with the side marker fitted

Derek

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by saffrontr
typo

[Bleednipple]

Interesting, James and Derek. And paradoxical that side repeaters might have been mandated in a country whose drivers famously paid little heed to any kinds of light signals, be they on another car or at the roadside... 

Nigel

[Bfg]

^^ 

 

So.., side repeaters for the Italians, thank gents, and as parking lights in America (thanks Tom for that one, that's a beautiful 250 too ! ). 

And then Roy Roger's spaceship Bling  to differentiate the NEW  4A model (surely an interim model as it wasn't designated TR5) from the old with their successful racing heritage.  And to help justify the forecourt price ..perhaps mostly for America whose dealers didn't want the IRS anyway, nor did they expect their market to accept its cost.  

It's perhaps ironic that the Fury concept, from Italy in '64, didn't have the repeaters, and the Italia's side repeaters were so discrete. ? 

And I still don't understand how they got passed Triumph's bean counters, when not fitting them to UK and most other market cars would have saved the cost of these rather overly-large chromed die-castings ..each with their additional wiring and two light fittings.!  That's an expensive way to provide a little lamp on the side of a car, when the design trend was already moving to wrap the front side-lamps around to the side (Triumph 2000 for example and their arch rival.. the MGB ).  Austin Healey wasn't doing it either.  Even the Triumph GT6 (from 1968) was not worthy of such adornment as side repeaters.  Which brings me back to they being a design incongruity on a 1965 model of TR4.

 

9 hours ago, saffrontr said:

Here's an image from the front page of an early 60's Standard Triumph Review magazine showing an Italian market TR4 with the side marker fitted

Derek

Thanks Derek, that's also a really nice cover shot.  That sort of side repeater light style, perhaps with a simple chrome bezel pressing around it for the UK and US markets seems very much more in keeping.

1'-  eh., it's been a long time since I've seen that, let alone as the price of a magazine.

.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Bfg

[Charlie D]

Pete,

I felt sure I had seen “Something” like that on another Michelotti  design.

I know the scale is different, but the close lines going front to back are the same as on the Herald Coupe roof. (1961 ish)

Charlie.