Ihave a view and I don't think its probably too far from the reality
of things as they were. There was no need to have different mounting
points for the release knob and cable. The fact that the RHD car
probably needed a shorter cable means that Engineering had to specify
and design two different components doing the same thing. All adds up
to unnecessary extra cost and not economic sense whatever way you
look at it, neither is it the sort of function which would be
life-threatening to other road-users. Can't be too many people would
want to release the bonnet in motion - and if they did, what good
would it do being front hinged? The other thought springing to mind
is that with the airbox and throttle linkages being on the RH side of
the injection engine, this was just another piece of elaborate string
to get in the way of the cable to the throttle butterflies and to
wind its way in and out of the RHD hydraulics and OK, the carb 6 was
also different inasmuch as the pedal hydraulics were on t'other side.
I'm of the opinion that as the vast majority of Triumph sports cars
were made for export to LHD markets, STI adopted a bonnet release
mechanism suitable for the majority markets AND to accommodate
variances in equipment layout beneath that big piece of painted tin.
Such variances cannot always be explained away in this manner - but
in this case it didn't matter. Drivers in UK, Eire, a number of
African markets, Australia and New Zealand were in the minority - so
make the blighters release the bonnet from the 'wrong' side of the
car. I think the same goes for the testicooler flap but the Brits got
there first <G>
John Mac
|