No, you are thinking of the old fashioned series strung Christmas lights.
On our cars, the bulbs (and indeed, the individual filaments on the dual
filament bulbs like the 1157s) are totally independent. One failing will
not affect the others on the circuit in any way. The only kind of failure
which would take out all 6 brake lights on a 67 or all 4 on a 68 would be a
failure of the brake light circuit itself - such as the brake pedal switch,
the turn signal switch, or a fuse in the supply line, or a dead short across
the line somewhere.
Dick Benjamin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McDonald" <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re (2): IML: Fixing Govt mandated 68 bulbs
They are now, but have they always been?
This is beating a dead horse, but now I have to echo Chris's question:
why? If it was not to insure that there would always be a working
taillight, what was the reason? Why are 3 lights working as a brake
light unsafe, but 2 are not?
If I'm not mistaken, if one bulb goes bad in a chain, then that "kills"
the lights in that chain. If you had 3 lights working as a brake light
on the L, and 3 on the R, then that would mean 6 bulbs in the chain-- 2
more chances at bulb failure, possibly resulting in no brake lights???
I'm just trying to figure this out now that you've got me curious.
Mark
On Saturday, June 28, 2003, at 01:40 PM, Imp67cc64@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Brake and tail lights are generally on seperately fused circuits,
> therefore there should be no way one will cause loss of the other. I
> assume the govt was stepping in in 68 to disallow the use of three
> bulbs working as brake or turn signals.
>
> John -- atlanta
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network