When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
In 1971 to 1974, MG changed the design of their MG Midget from a squared off top line on the rear arch which they had had from 1961 to a round wheel arch. In 1974 they changed the design back to the squared off arch for US safety reasons. MG found that in a rear shunt the back of the MG Midget round wheel arch folded up into itself crushing the fuel tank which then exploded. Only happened a couple of times but enough for them to realise that the squared off wheel arch gave a much stronger shape so rear end accidents did not cause the car to fold so much.
Jaguar changed from the design of the Mk2 with round arches in 1961 to the Squared off arch with the E Type and MkX then 1963 with the S type and all subsequent Jaguar models so did they know something that MG took longer to work out?
1976 MG Midget with squared off rear arch. 1974 MG Midget with round rear arch.
Cass, I may be wrong, but didn't the later phase of Midgets with squared arches also have a beam inside the rear wing to reduce the amount of crushing in a rear end collision? Midgets always seemed odd to me. The story goes that MG designed the tail, Donald Healey designed the nose, and someone in Longbridge stuck the two together - the height or depth of badge engineering compromise. Aesthetically, the S types with the round arch do seem to be in danger of the tail falling off.
I remember an IMechE meeting, where someone in the audience asked the then Jaguar product director how he felt about all the people who had been killed by Jaguar positioning fuel tanks in the tail and rear wings of their cars. As it happened, the answer was that those cars were all from before his time. When pushed, the questioner couldn't give any examples of fires due to Jaguar fuel tanks bursting.
Cass, I may be wrong, but didn't the later phase of Midgets with squared arches also have a beam inside the rear wing to reduce the amount of crushing in a rear end collision?
Not sure about the beam but they did have the plastic bumpers and anything was possible to conform to the US market. As for examples I quite agree that this might have been another story made up. I actually like the round wheel arch midget better than the squared off version but then again I prefer the squared off tail of the S Type over the round end of the Mk2.
In the case of my MK1 I believe the original full depth spats enhance the "period" of the car. Numerous people have enquired about getting similar full depth spats.
So, I won't be changing them.
Yup! Full spat or Coombs treatment. Coombs Mk1's looked good. Nothing in between looks right to me. It is also good that we are all different & different in our taste. Imagine a boring world where we were all the same.
In the original post, Oxendine asked how to make the lip on the revised rear arch. If you are making it, what shape should it have? Should the lip or bead of the rear arch match the front? (Here I'm thinking of a section through the bead rather than the radius of the arch) Some spat lips seem to be a lot bigger than the the front, which seems a bit odd.
Next question: if you're choosing the spat down to a couple of inches, what's the point of keeping it detachable with another panel gap to make consistent with all the others on the car? Why not fix it permanently and close the gap?
In the original post, Oxendine asked how to make the lip on the revised rear arch. If you are making it, what shape should it have? Should the lip or bead of the rear arch match the front? (Here I'm thinking of a section through the bead rather than the radius of the arch) Some spat lips seem to be a lot bigger than the the front, which seems a bit odd.
Next question: if you're choosing the spat down to a couple of inches, what's the point of keeping it detachable with another panel gap to make consistent with all the others on the car? Why not fix it permanently and close the gap?
Peter. I think the section through the rear arch should mimic the front arch. Not a thick thing like some. Maybe flattening slightly toward the rear door. There should be no joint. It should be an integral part of the car a la Coombs.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; 09-23-2022 at 07:05 PM.
09-21-2022, 10:30 AM
