
Cat's eyes
#1
Posted 16 September 2008 - 21:56
Colin Chapman's proposal was tiny and light weight with a 5cc water container. It was pointed out that this was insufficient even for one cleaning of the lens but Chapman retorted that this was not mentioned in the regulations.
Daimler-Benz turned their entire drawing office and toolroom to design and manufacture their solution. Water was held in a spherical container ground from a solid brass ingot. It featured a total return circuit for the water, making replenishment unnecessary. Water was fed to the lens by three separate pumps, each capable of acting as back up for the other two in the event of failure. When asked what would happen if the common power source for the pumps failed, the engineer in charge said that it wouldn't fail as Daimler-Benz had made it, but if it did they would send out a man with a cloth to clean the lens.
The Officine Alfieri Maserati produced a simple and effective solution based on their previous products. They submitted 33 examples for the pilot although there was some doubt whether all 33 actually existed at the same time. It was soon realised that the Maserati cat's eyes were not all identical and could be distinguished by close examination of the welding techniques used by different mechanics in the factory. Sadly, a number of fatalities occurred due to people wearing anoraks examining the cat's eyes in the road while cars were running.
The March factory also produced a cat's eye based on their previous products. In fact some claimed that it was a recycled product from last year with a water container attached. The entry was disqualified when it was realised that there was no pipe connecting the container to the lens.
The Ford Motor Company reassembled the committee which designed the original Ford GT. Everybody agreed that their cat's eye was the best looking of all, but unfortunately the lens was fitted back to front and was lit only by the tail lights of passing cars.
The ever inventive Gordon Murray produced a solution that used not water as the cleaning mechanism, but a special high hysteresis liquid sourced from the aerospace industry. When a car passed over the cat's eye the liquid was spread over the road surface, vastly increasing the tyre's adhesion. The Brabham drivers were told to drive over the cat's eyes and lapped two seconds faster than anybody else. Murray proved conclusively (to his own satisfaction) that the primary purpose of the liquid was to clean the lens. There was some disquiet when it was realised that the liquid was radio active and had a half life of 10 billion years, but Murray's team owner dispelled criticism by saying that he had already bought the commercial rights for that period.
BRM promised an entry but it was not ready by the closing date. It finally arrived but was too big to fit into the holes made for it in the road surface.
Lotus submitted a second entry which featured a unique twin lens design. One lens moved as the car passed over it, the other remained still. To Chapman's disgust, the device was immediately declared illegal, but it didn't work anyway.
It is hoped that more entries will be submitted shortly.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 16 September 2008 - 22:19
Now consider this. If the cat had been walking away from him, would he have invented the pencil sharpener?

#3
Posted 16 September 2008 - 22:50
#4
Posted 16 September 2008 - 23:12
all races will be run at night and the tracks will now have cat's eyes (with lasers
shooting out of them) delineating 3 separate lanes. Every 100 laps, the top 10 cars will
move up a lane. It will be like having 3 races in one by the end of the night enthused
Bill France Jr! Why this is as good an idea as my Chase for the Championship!
Reports of a toll booth on the backstretch to collect fees to pay for the "improvements"
have not been confirmed...
#5
Posted 17 September 2008 - 00:25
John and Charlie Cooper were rumoured to be submitting an entry but Owen Maddock was too busy playing the tuba, fornicating and building hovercraft - and in any case they're still arguing about the cost of it.
Jack Brabham submitted a modified version of the Cooper proposal that fires stones at slow cars.
Ferrari submitted an entry that in no way conformed to the design brief. It won.
After spending $800m/year, Toyota submitted a photocopy of the Ferrari design, which didn't work.
Williams merely submitted one sheet of paper with a UK Independence Party logo and "Hands Off Our Roads, Johnny Foreigner!" on it.
BRM's submission willl be ready in approximately 2015. Each cats' eye weighs approximately fifteeen tons and features a Rolls Royce and Associates nuclear reactor as used on hunter-killer submarines. It has tested promisingly at Folkingham Aerodrome and works by turning everythig in a five mile radius into gently-glowing ashes.
Honda's entry neither reflects nor transmits light, as light pollution is really bad, ok? But it does have a pretty paintjob.
#6
Posted 17 September 2008 - 00:30
OOooh. Bit of politics there.
#7
Posted 17 September 2008 - 00:31
Independent technical experts from around the world will agree that the McLaren entry is far superior in all aspects - aesthetics, reliability, technical innovation, cost, efficiency and potential longevity.
The three impartial competition judges, from Milan, Turin and Rome will declare the design from Ferrari the outright winner on the grounds that it looks good in red. : :
Well, you can't win 'em all.
Rob

#8
Posted 17 September 2008 - 00:32
#9
Posted 17 September 2008 - 00:38
#10
Posted 17 September 2008 - 04:45
#11
Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:31
Not that I know of Matey.Originally posted by Twin Window
From an old racing mag published April 1st, per chance?
#12
Posted 17 September 2008 - 07:21
Originally posted by petefenelon
BRM's submission willl be ready in approximately 2015. Each cats' eye weighs approximately fifteeen tons and features a Rolls Royce and Associates nuclear reactor as used on hunter-killer submarines. It has tested promisingly at Folkingham Aerodrome and works by turning everythig in a five mile radius into gently-glowing ashes.



On a more serious note, when I started reading Roger's first post, I was minded of some of the recent stories regarding cat's eyes with speed cameras in them......ugh.
#13
Posted 17 September 2008 - 07:46
#14
Posted 17 September 2008 - 07:48
#15
Posted 17 September 2008 - 07:56



#16
Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:03
#17
Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:29
#18
Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:30
#19
Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:51
Advertisement
#20
Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:58
#21
Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:59
#22
Posted 17 September 2008 - 10:49
Firstly a 3 week group tour for all managers of the car company's sections was organised to Australia's Outback with a grant from the local Foriegn affairs dept. who's number 1 coincedently has the same surname as my friend.
After the first night's stay in Dubbo it was reported by the Hotel manager to local police that some of his carpark catseyes had gone missing. About 4 weeks later Hung Lo summoned me for my opinion of their prototype "very proud of our original design" catseyes that looked like they had already had a suprising amount of testing.
After carefully inspecting them I was suprised at the high quality and announced that they were indeed the equal of anything I had seen back home in Oz.
After winning the competition based on foresaid quality but at a supply price that was 3 times lower than any other submission, 200,000 units were promptly ordered.
Upon recieving the first batch, upon inspection it was found that nothing more than silver frost paint was used for the reflective surface, only 120,000 glue pad sets had been supplied, 40,000 units were deformed beyond use, 15,000 were unpainted and all fitting instructions were in Chinese. Upon regeristing a complaint, the FIA were informed that it was the fault of the foreign design team the Company had consulted.
#23
Posted 17 September 2008 - 11:55
Designed for Tony Vandervell by Chapman & Costin. Their ideas were constrained, however, in that they were required to utilise some existing parts from an earlier Ferrari based unit. Although it worked most of the time, this made the cats-eye assembly extraordinarily tall and ungainly looking. In fact it looked rather more like a traffic cone.
#24
Posted 17 September 2008 - 14:03
Paul M
#25
Posted 17 September 2008 - 15:14
The VW entry was well designed using high grade materials and could be produced at a competitve price.
The Audi design was identical but with a higher unit cost.
The Skoda entry was identical but with a lower unit cost.
The Seat design was identical but with a lower standard of construction.
The Bentley cat's eye bore a remarkable likeness to an existing 40 year old design.
The Lamborghini cat's eye? Kept under wraps until they find out what the Ferrari entry looks like.
Then there's the Bugatti... Not only was it massively over engineered with a capability that no one could ever fully use, but it's costs were exhorbitant.
#26
Posted 17 September 2008 - 15:24
Mike Gascoygne was paid untold billions to produce a design but failed to show any.
Adrian Newey produced a sleek, impressive design, unluckily too tight for the water to squeeze in. It was pretty good anyway.
#27
Posted 17 September 2008 - 15:25
#28
Posted 17 September 2008 - 15:53
By the way has anyone heard from Nigel Stepney during the comp? He hasn't been heard of since about the same time Mike Coughlam submitted his entry.
#29
Posted 17 September 2008 - 16:29
#30
Posted 17 September 2008 - 16:36
#31
Posted 17 September 2008 - 16:42
#32
Posted 17 September 2008 - 17:48
Originally posted by Roger Clark
Water was held in a spherical container ground from a solid brass ingot.
I'm not sure I believe this. For once I suspect the accuracy of your facts, Roger. Isn't it quite difficult to grind brass at all, let alone into a spherical shape?
#33
Posted 17 September 2008 - 17:52
1939 came and went and both designs were lost in the fog of war. But the Nazi propaganda remained ....
#34
Posted 17 September 2008 - 17:56
#35
Posted 17 September 2008 - 18:42
Originally posted by David Beard
I'm not sure I believe this. For once I suspect the accuracy of your facts, Roger. Isn't it quite difficult to grind brass at all, let alone into a spherical shape?
Not if you use plenty of Absinthe as a lubricant............................
Soluble oil on the brass is also helpful.
#36
Posted 17 September 2008 - 21:38

#37
Posted 17 September 2008 - 21:44
based on a perfectly preserved and well patinated original example, 1 of 12 it is believed, which he had been able purchase from a caring private collection. However, feeling that he was the man to test this item on the road, he managed to stuff it into the bank wrecking all semblance of originality. Since money can buy condition but not originality, it was "restored" to better than new/period condition.............Originally posted by Paolo
Adrian Newey produced a sleek, impressive design,
Roger Lund
#38
Posted 17 September 2008 - 21:55
Originally posted by Barry Boor
Is it me - or is some of this thread not actually true....
It might not seem so...
But maybe after someone posts details of André Citroën's entry it will be.
#39
Posted 17 September 2008 - 22:02
Originally posted by 2F-001
Jim Hall's version was notable for being very firmly fixed to the road. It also dispensed with water systems altogether. The lenses or reflectors were to be cleaned by a roving vacuum cleaner.
A different Texan poked around among other entrants, selected the parts he liked best, had a few geniuses meld them together, and came up with the example that looked and worked best of all, and for the least money.
Of the 21,000 originally manufactured, only 98,050 are known to exist today.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 17 September 2008 - 22:08
Edsel Ford's market research proposed a Siamesed cat that could be seen from both directions but nobody liked the look of it
The current Ford organisation presented the balance sheet for several British catteries that they had picked the eyes out of and sold to an indian restaurant
#41
Posted 17 September 2008 - 22:49
Acknowledging that the new specification demands that they are self cleaning, each 'eye' will come complete with an individual until recently employed within the financial services industry, a bucket of water, and a squeegee.
We aim to put the 'human touch' back into road safety, an insider is reported to have said, 'at the same time reducing unemployment figures and giving these individuals a chance, at last, to do something worthwhile and in the public interest'...
Rob

#42
Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:22

#43
Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:49
#44
Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:09
Upon inspection the testers were bewildered that they could only see a simple, albeit heavy, alloy unit with reflective surface and no sign of Mr Turners reported wash cycle uniquely using vibration and oil rather than water. Mr Turner calmly mentioned "check my credentials, any product I design vibrates and emits oil automatically".
#45
Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:58
#46
Posted 18 September 2008 - 07:16
Originally posted by Kingsleyrob
I understand from a reliable source that the British Govermnent are about to submit a design based 99.9% on the traditional Percy Shaw offering, on the basis that the new designs just don't have that traditional and dare I say it - nostalgic - feel to them.
Acknowledging that the new specification demands that they are self cleaning, each 'eye' will come complete with an individual until recently employed within the financial services industry, a bucket of water, and a squeegee.
We aim to put the 'human touch' back into road safety, an insider is reported to have said, 'at the same time reducing unemployment figures and giving these individuals a chance, at last, to do something worthwhile and in the public interest'...
Rob![]()
And Percy Shaw III Jr., seeing one of the squegee brigade bending over to clean a cat's eye was minded to invent a device for sharpening fence-posts............................
#47
Posted 18 September 2008 - 07:29
Originally posted by Twin Window
From an old racing mag published April 1st, per chance?
Memories... When Road & track published their "April Fool's" issue - every 10 years or so?

#48
Posted 18 September 2008 - 09:32
In Australia, where roads are a state responsibility, NSW had managed to persuade Victoria to use a design based on an old Scottish standard with a diameter of 5’ 0” and the Victorian government eagerly commenced the process to design and produce cat’s eyes for Victorian roads. Unfortunately, in the meantime there was a change of government in NSW and the new government decided to use the new English standard of 4’8 ½” and rolled out their cat’s eyes on this basis. This was a real disaster for travel between the states. At the NSW/Vic border, Victorian drivers were forced leave their cars in a holding pen and transfer to a car configured to see NSW’s cat’s eyes, and vice-versa.
Of course this madness did not stop there. Queensland and Western Australia argued that, as they had many more miles of roads to service they could only afford cat’s eyes of 3’6” in diameter. South Australia had a 'bob each way' and on some roads there were cat’s eyes of 5’0”, 4’8 ½” and 3’6”! They also developed special roadside stations where cars could be quickly modified to see the cat’s eyes on single gauge roads.
Some semblance of order was eventually brought to bear on this whole sorry mess when Highway One was equipped with standard gauge cat’s eyes, enabling continuous travel from Brisbane all the way to Perth!
Cheers
Steve
#49
Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:58
Anyone seen the SEFAC version? Didn't reflect much. I could SEFAC all.
#50
Posted 18 September 2008 - 11:49
Divila was hired by an Italian company to produce a new design and obliged, relying on decades of experience to turn out a flawless piece of engineering.
Then he went on holiday for a well deserved rest.
When he came back he found that his design had been reproduced with minor modifications such as:
replacing titanium with lead
aluminium with firewood
carbon fiber with plasticine
Divila consequently distanced himself from the whole affair, putting a wall of lawyers between himself and the "thing".
The prototype was sold anyway to a new Italian company, which paired it with an original W shaped water tank of interesting design. They claimed cardboard was an ideal material to build it and they hoped to sell watertanks to the competition in the future.
Nobody will ever know how would have this catseye fared: despite many trials and the desperate last ditch attempt to replace the cardboard water tank with a standard one, it always broke to pieces during the 15 metres trip from the container to the road.