Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Dashcam ideas..

I bought the cheapest nextbase dash cam to give it a try, found it good for what I wanted, bought another for the other car, been working fine with no problems.

I agree, cars in Australia could be a lot cheaper if we could accept the safety testing standards of other countries. Does anyone remember the Toyota MR2 Spyder from around 2002? In Japan they made both manual and an automatic, when Toyota planned to sell the car in Australia the authorities told Toyota that each variant of the car they want to sell has to be crash tested. Crash testing costs a lot of money and obviously the car is useless afterwards. Toyota had planned to sell both manual and Auto but was not sure the model would sell well enough to justify the cost of crashing two cars, as the Mazda MX5 was only available as a Manual Toyota decided that maybe the Automatic version would sell to people who want a small RWD convertible but don't like manuals so they only crashed the automatic and only sold the automatic.

I met a guy who was buying three year old Toyota MR2's and manual gearboxes from Japan and converting the cars. He told me that due to no manuals available in Australia there was a market for people who wanted the better handling of a mid engined car and something different to the MX5 so he just converts them and sells them second hand. He said the conversion is not that hard to do. (I do find it odd that second hand cars can be altered and sold OK)

Yes LCT also adds a lot to the cost of cars. Cars that use 7.0L/100km and under pay 33% tax on the price above $75,000, cars above 7L/100km pay 33% above $60,000. LCT is worked out after other duties and taxes. I was told by the Morgan dealer in Melbourne that the 4/4 and +4 both meet the 7/L100km rule so use the $75,000 threshold. Even so my guess is LCT adds about $7,000 to a new Morgan +4 and $23,000 to the Roadster.

There was talk about removing LCT once the car industry closes down, well now it has happened but we still have LCT. I would think there is also a valid argument for getting rid of Australian Design Rules and the mandatory crash testing seeing we no longer have a car industry to protect. I expect that adds significantly to the cost of a Morgan and other low volume manufacturers.

Interesting discussion with a gentleman from Bendigo (Vic) yesterday afternoon regarding ADR

We the general public are told ADR's are to protect us making sure any car sold in Australia is safe. My view that is shared by many other people is that ADR's nothing to do with protecting us the general gullible public, but are to protect the major companies that sell cars here my making it less attractive for other companies to try sell cars here, especially small volume manufacturers who find it hard to sell enough cars to cover the cost of the testing.

Really if a car passes European crash testing, or crash testing in Japan for a Japanese model does it really need to be redone here just to waste a manufacturers money?

Does that seem to match the Bendigo gentleman's view?

Pretty much Chris, yes
Depending on the time, I occasionally describe the modifications ADR requires to be made to the M3W.
Said gent from Bendigo had never actually seen one, but was aiming to find some photos after he returned to Australia.

It has to be said that some of the requirements make sense and it would not be unreasonable for Morgan to incorporate them into general production. Nothing would be lost by incorporating the higher roll-over protection, head rest/padding, and high level brake light.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the ADRs do not cater for a 3 wheeler which is more car like than motorcycle like. Under the rules of many countries you must be able to see over the top of any windscreen (even on a motorcycle) that is not equipped with wipers. I think that led to the lower screen requirement in Australia.

The M3W indicators were always in a strange position and I have often wondered why they could not be mounted on the top of the mudguards at the front.

Regarding the "moustache" ; I do understand the need for pedestrian safety but an M3W is never going to match a car and in this case it is more reasonable to treat it like a motorcycle. A Moto Guzzi California, for example, is not obliged to be fitted with bumpers.

You can add them as options (aka consumer choice)... I did (raised roll bars anyway - substituted reflectors for the high level brake light!).


They also "cook" next to the exhausts (remember the cases of them melting?). A side/tail/indicator light on top of the mudguard would make sense, but realistically they should be offering them built into LED headlight units as an option.

I thought the moustache was something to do with emissions control - oh well! If you want pedestrian safety surely you need some other car... or maybe a cow catcher or a wire cage over the front?

BACK ON TOPIC: I always wondered why dashcams are not built-in? Hardware is cheap, and company car insurance would surely benefit...

Citroen have done it.
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/tech/does-it-work-citroen-c3s-connected-cam-built-in-dashcam/

It was the E Prototype yes, and I assumed that Top Gear mag would have facts right ☹️

Tassie should have suseeded years ago and gone tax free like Jersey 😄👍🏻

After my incident with the deer, I've been investigating dashcams.

Does anyone have a suggestion for something that can be easily fitted to my 4/4?

As water drips over the windscreen when it rains, something at least a bit waterproof is required and demountable easily to prevent theft.