Badly modified cars thread Mk2
Discussion
Construction and use reg's would suggest that particular ornament is illegal.
Mascots
53. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), no mascot, emblem or other ornamental object shall be carried by a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1937 in any position where it is likely to strike any person with whom the vehicle may collide unless the mascot is not liable to cause injury to such person by reason of any projection thereon.
(2) Instead of complying with the requirements of paragraph (1) a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 74/483 or 79/488 or ECE Regulation 26.01.
74/483/eec:
6.1. Ornaments 6.1.1. Added ornaments which project more than 10 mm from their support shall retract, become detached or bend over under a force of 10 daN exerted at their most salient point in any direction in a plane approximately parallel to the surface on which they are mounted. These provisions shall not apply to ornaments on radiator grilles, to which only the general requirements of item 5 shall apply.
Given the amount of regulation regarding the construction of cars to make them pedestrian friendly in a collision, I am amazed that they are not just banned outright.
Wishing damage on someones car is a bit much though...
Mascots
53. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), no mascot, emblem or other ornamental object shall be carried by a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1937 in any position where it is likely to strike any person with whom the vehicle may collide unless the mascot is not liable to cause injury to such person by reason of any projection thereon.
(2) Instead of complying with the requirements of paragraph (1) a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 74/483 or 79/488 or ECE Regulation 26.01.
74/483/eec:
6.1. Ornaments 6.1.1. Added ornaments which project more than 10 mm from their support shall retract, become detached or bend over under a force of 10 daN exerted at their most salient point in any direction in a plane approximately parallel to the surface on which they are mounted. These provisions shall not apply to ornaments on radiator grilles, to which only the general requirements of item 5 shall apply.
Given the amount of regulation regarding the construction of cars to make them pedestrian friendly in a collision, I am amazed that they are not just banned outright.
Wishing damage on someones car is a bit much though...
SpeedBall said:
Saw a Mercedes AMG GT/S in Knutsford last night. Looked widebodied with the largest rear wing I've ever seen on a road car, GT3-sized. Just too much.
Its team Galagshttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=team+galag+amg&a...
Its not badly modified
KillerHERTZ said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. The rear wing alone would put it in this thread... 
DocJock said:
Construction and use reg's would suggest that particular ornament is illegal.
Mascots
53. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), no mascot, emblem or other ornamental object shall be carried by a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1937 in any position where it is likely to strike any person with whom the vehicle may collide unless the mascot is not liable to cause injury to such person by reason of any projection thereon.
(2) Instead of complying with the requirements of paragraph (1) a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 74/483 or 79/488 or ECE Regulation 26.01.
74/483/eec:
6.1. Ornaments 6.1.1. Added ornaments which project more than 10 mm from their support shall retract, become detached or bend over under a force of 10 daN exerted at their most salient point in any direction in a plane approximately parallel to the surface on which they are mounted. These provisions shall not apply to ornaments on radiator grilles, to which only the general requirements of item 5 shall apply.
Given the amount of regulation regarding the construction of cars to make them pedestrian friendly in a collision, I am amazed that they are not just banned outright.
Wishing damage on someones car is a bit much though...
I would never normally wish damage to someones car but if it saves a childs life... Hopefully jag owners will see sense and carefully remove them themselves. And besides shouldn't cars sporting these fail their MOTs?Mascots
53. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), no mascot, emblem or other ornamental object shall be carried by a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1937 in any position where it is likely to strike any person with whom the vehicle may collide unless the mascot is not liable to cause injury to such person by reason of any projection thereon.
(2) Instead of complying with the requirements of paragraph (1) a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 74/483 or 79/488 or ECE Regulation 26.01.
74/483/eec:
6.1. Ornaments 6.1.1. Added ornaments which project more than 10 mm from their support shall retract, become detached or bend over under a force of 10 daN exerted at their most salient point in any direction in a plane approximately parallel to the surface on which they are mounted. These provisions shall not apply to ornaments on radiator grilles, to which only the general requirements of item 5 shall apply.
Given the amount of regulation regarding the construction of cars to make them pedestrian friendly in a collision, I am amazed that they are not just banned outright.
Wishing damage on someones car is a bit much though...
KillerHERTZ said:
SpeedBall said:
Saw a Mercedes AMG GT/S in Knutsford last night. Looked widebodied with the largest rear wing I've ever seen on a road car, GT3-sized. Just too much.
Its team Galagshttps://www.google.co.uk/search?q=team+galag+amg&a...
Its not badly modified
SpeedBall said:
KillerHERTZ said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. The rear wing alone would put it in this thread... MiltonBaines said:
DocJock said:
Construction and use reg's would suggest that particular ornament is illegal.
Mascots
53. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), no mascot, emblem or other ornamental object shall be carried by a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1937 in any position where it is likely to strike any person with whom the vehicle may collide unless the mascot is not liable to cause injury to such person by reason of any projection thereon.
(2) Instead of complying with the requirements of paragraph (1) a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 74/483 or 79/488 or ECE Regulation 26.01.
74/483/eec:
6.1. Ornaments 6.1.1. Added ornaments which project more than 10 mm from their support shall retract, become detached or bend over under a force of 10 daN exerted at their most salient point in any direction in a plane approximately parallel to the surface on which they are mounted. These provisions shall not apply to ornaments on radiator grilles, to which only the general requirements of item 5 shall apply.
Given the amount of regulation regarding the construction of cars to make them pedestrian friendly in a collision, I am amazed that they are not just banned outright.
Wishing damage on someones car is a bit much though...
I would never normally wish damage to someones car but if it saves a childs life... Hopefully jag owners will see sense and carefully remove them themselves. And besides shouldn't cars sporting these fail their MOTs?Mascots
53. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), no mascot, emblem or other ornamental object shall be carried by a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1937 in any position where it is likely to strike any person with whom the vehicle may collide unless the mascot is not liable to cause injury to such person by reason of any projection thereon.
(2) Instead of complying with the requirements of paragraph (1) a vehicle may comply with Community Directive 74/483 or 79/488 or ECE Regulation 26.01.
74/483/eec:
6.1. Ornaments 6.1.1. Added ornaments which project more than 10 mm from their support shall retract, become detached or bend over under a force of 10 daN exerted at their most salient point in any direction in a plane approximately parallel to the surface on which they are mounted. These provisions shall not apply to ornaments on radiator grilles, to which only the general requirements of item 5 shall apply.
Given the amount of regulation regarding the construction of cars to make them pedestrian friendly in a collision, I am amazed that they are not just banned outright.
Wishing damage on someones car is a bit much though...
AMGJocky said:
Sorry, this should not be here. Particularly in the colour it is currently.
Funny that someone who owns a CLS and someone with AMG in their username is defending the AMG. Unless it's a genuine AMG GT3 that's been made road legal (along the lines of Andy's P1 GTR) then I just think it's overkill in the same way that BMW at the top of the page is. Perhaps it's because I'm old, I dunno.As I said, we can agree to disagree.
AMGJocky said:
SpeedBall said:
KillerHERTZ said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. The rear wing alone would put it in this thread... Compared to the real thing they have failed extensively with their mods IMHO - if you were going to modify a car that expensive then why on Earth wouldn't you do it properly.... ?
The genuine motorsport parts might potentially in some cases even be cheaper than aftermarket tuner tat?
Edited by DiscoColin on Monday 27th March 16:38
DiscoColin said:
Take a look at an actual AMG GT GT3 and you will see that actually : if that is what they were trying to achieve, the car certainly does belong on here. If it were well modified they would have sourced the correct wing supports or made an effort to produce something more like them than whatever that is that they cut out of a piece of sheet metal. The uneven diffuser is a bit of a mess too, as are the graphics.
Compared to the real thing they have failed extensively with their mods IMHO - if you were going to modify a car that expensive then why on Earth wouldn't you do it properly.... ?
The genuine motorsport parts might potentially in some cases even be cheaper than aftermarket tuner tat?
but modifying isn't copying....Compared to the real thing they have failed extensively with their mods IMHO - if you were going to modify a car that expensive then why on Earth wouldn't you do it properly.... ?
The genuine motorsport parts might potentially in some cases even be cheaper than aftermarket tuner tat?
Edited by DiscoColin on Monday 27th March 16:38
its a lovely car ... not to everyone's taste i know but thats not why people modify
making it the same as OEM isn't modding either
being not to one's taste isn't a reason to be on this thread but its interesting to see what people see as badly modified.... some people wouldn't like any car that has been taken even just 1 x Mbadge away from OEM
JJ
AMGJocky said:
SpeedBall said:
KillerHERTZ said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. The rear wing alone would put it in this thread... DoubleD said:
AMGJocky said:
SpeedBall said:
KillerHERTZ said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. The rear wing alone would put it in this thread... forsure said:
DoubleD said:
AMGJocky said:
SpeedBall said:
KillerHERTZ said:
We'll have to agree to disagree. The rear wing alone would put it in this thread... 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff