I wonder if these things will ever catch on?

[Jocko]

From Tomorrows World - 1971

£55,000 in 1971 is worth £918,793.33 today.

And I actually had the 2000TC version of that car. Another rust bucket.

[Kremmen]

Nah, never happen 

[Mr Onion]

And I actually had the 2000TC version of that car. Another rust bucket.

But it was good-looking until it became a lacy doily (well, I thought so)

[ColinS]

And I actually had the 2000TC version of that car. Another rust bucket.

I had one too.  Never rusted but the torque convertor was a pile of poo.  Never owned a more sluggish car and it put me off buying another automatic for decades.  Now I wouldn't go back to a manual box.

One thing it did have that I remember was a circuit that dimmed the brake lights when the side lights were on.  Now that never caught on either.

[Jocko]

One thing it did have that I remember was a circuit that dimmed the brake lights when the side lights were on.  Now that never caught on either.

That was a BMC/BL thing. Both my Triumphs and my Austin 1800 had that feature.

[Neil Ives]

One thing it did have that I remember was a circuit that dimmed the brake lights when the side lights were on.  Now that never caught on either.

That was a BMC/BL thing. Both my Triumphs and my Austin 1800 had that feature.

Are you being serious about this being an intended feature? I thought it was due to poor earthing.

[Kremmen]

BL build quality 

Tail lights, apply brake lights, start indicating and the whole lot starts flashing 

[Jocko]

Are you being serious about this being an intended feature? I thought it was due to poor earthing.

There was a resistor switched into the brake light circuit when the lights were switched on to reduce the intensity of the brake lights.

[Mr Onion]

<snip>I thought it was due to poor earthing.

So did I

[ColinS]

Well at the time I thought it was a good idea and believe if something similar were to be adopted today, then there would be fewer complaints about people sitting with their foot on the brake pedal and dazzling the occupants of the car behind at night.

[madasafish]

And when braking from high speed in fog, no-one will see the dimmed brake lights.
Recipe for multiple pileups

[ColinB]

Well at the time I thought it was a good idea and believe if something similar were to be adopted today, then there would be fewer complaints about people sitting with their foot on the brake pedal and dazzling the occupants of the car behind at night.

The brake lights need to be bright enough to be seen in bright sunlight. But there’s no reason for them to be that bright at night, as long as there’s still a clear difference between taillights and brake lights. So I think it’s a good idea, but it’ll never catch on because people - and car manufacturers - seem to think it’s better to have lights as bright as possible.

And when braking from high speed in fog, no-one will see the dimmed brake lights.
Recipe for multiple pileups

High speed in fog ... really? You would of course have the rear foglights on in fog, which are brighter than brake lights and really do encourage you to keep a safe distance.

[Jocko]

They didn't dim them that much. Just slightly. That was possibly why the idea wasn't taken forward. My Volvo had a similar circuit for the daytime headlights which were dimmer during the day than they were at night. It used a resistance wire to reduce the voltage to the bulbs to stop them from burning out too soon.

[Lord Voltermore]

Amazing what they could  do back then. Flying to the moon and stuff.   Main obstacle seems to have been accurately controlling voltages  - due in large part to cars being rust buckets.       Plenty of time spent that I'll never get back trying to sort poor earths on cars that quickly resembled shredded wheat. 

[Kremmen]

That's what always amazes me.

Back in the day, cars had a 10 year life before the scrap heap beckoned. These days I see 15 year old + examples for sale that look almost new.