In reply to both this and Stuart:
Not the squab, which is the seat-back, but the seat-part itself. I've not
looked at an earlier car in detail, maybe the frames and covers also taper
but not so much, I don't know. I *assumed* (dangerous thing) that because
Porter made no mention of the handing in his reupholster of a very early car
that they had none. But I would say that even with the extra tunnel width
in the later car being in front of the seats the taper of the tunnel between
the seats would have to be more marked in order to join up. Clausager does
appear to show this change in shape, although it is not that clear.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Heim" <mvheim@attbi.com>
To: "MG List" <mgs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: The leather seat thread prompts a question....
> Hmmm, are you sure? I would say my 66 seats are also tapered; meaning,
> asymmetrically shaped (very subtly) to clear the tunnel. And the squabs
for
> my 66 are visually the same shape as on, say, a 69, although I admit I
> haven't measured them. This is not to say the frames might not be
> different...
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|