Woops, not a C-series (delete pic!)
I attended the Gaydon Retro Show over the weekend. Lots of lovely people and some wonderful lorries, including this: for me, the star of the show! But then, all of you who know me, would understand why I am beguiled by a LHD Middle-East ERF with a ■■■■■■■ lump and a 9-speed Fuller! 
. Robert
The step panel is “wrong” on that C. The step is normally lower, so that the front surround is level with the bumper. I wonder why that one is different?
[zb]
anorak:
The step panel is “wrong” on that C. The step is normally lower, so that the front surround is level with the bumper. I wonder why that one is different?
Your right Anorak, seems like a lot of work for what reason?
ERF MAN:
[zb]
anorak:
The step panel is “wrong” on that C. The step is normally lower, so that the front surround is level with the bumper. I wonder why that one is different?Your right Anorak, seems like a lot of work for what reason?
It looks like a “factory” job, as if they could move the mould impression of the step features relative to the main shape. Reason? Elsewhere on the thread, it says the lorry has a front exhaust, so it could be clearance for that. On page two, there is another one similar:
It does not have a front exhaust 
None of the others I have seen have the odd step panel- just those two ME-market ones. The other export vehicles on the thread all have “ordinary” panels.
[zb]
anorak:ERF MAN:
[zb]
anorak:
The step panel is “wrong” on that C. The step is normally lower, so that the front surround is level with the bumper. I wonder why that one is different?Your right Anorak, seems like a lot of work for what reason?
It looks like a “factory” job, as if they could move the mould impression of the step features relative to the main shape. Reason? Elsewhere on the thread, it says the lorry has a front exhaust, so it could be clearance for that. On page two, there is another one similar:
0
It does not have a front exhaust
None of the others I have seen have the odd step panel- just those two ME-market ones. The other export vehicles on the thread all have “ordinary” panels.
Must have something to do with running 1200x20 tyres
ERF MAN:
[zb]
anorak:ERF MAN:
[zb]
anorak:
The step panel is “wrong” on that C. The step is normally lower, so that the front surround is level with the bumper. I wonder why that one is different?Your right Anorak, seems like a lot of work for what reason?
It looks like a “factory” job, as if they could move the mould impression of the step features relative to the main shape. Reason? Elsewhere on the thread, it says the lorry has a front exhaust, so it could be clearance for that. On page two, there is another one similar:
0
It does not have a front exhaust
None of the others I have seen have the odd step panel- just those two ME-market ones. The other export vehicles on the thread all have “ordinary” panels.Must have something to do with running 1200x20 tyres
It could be: it’s deffo on 1200x20 tyres. Robert
Surely you would want the step lower, with bigger tyres?
My guess is the steps were made in error, and the customer got a discount.
[zb]
anorak:
Surely you would want the step lower, with bigger tyres?My guess is the steps were made in error, and the customer got a discount.
Ground clearance, tyre clearance?
I’d put my money on ground-clearance height. Perhaps later ones had the higher step by request, or as a result of frequent fouling. Either way, it was easy to use to access the cab (I climbed in on Saturday!). Robert
Sorry chaps- the ground clearance argument does not stack up, as the bumper is forward and below the step, so that will always foul first. OK there might have been versions without a bumper, for severe off-road work, but there are not
If you look at the B series-era M series, it has a step of similar proportions. Then look at the later M series, which has exactly the same lower panels as the C. I suggest that the “low profile” steps were originally conceived for that model and, for some reason, ended up on these export chassis. You can imagine a low-ride-height M series, with the bumper mounted higher up (and further forward, to clear the rest of it), and the step being raised level with that.
Whatever, it is part of Sandbach’s history of making fibreglass moulds for fun.
[zb]
anorak:
Sorry chaps- the ground clearance argument does not stack up, as the bumper is forward and below the step, so that will always foul first. OK there might have been versions without a bumper, for severe off-road work, but there are notIf you look at the B series-era M series, it has a step of similar proportions. Then look at the later M series, which has exactly the same lower panels as the C. I suggest that the “low profile” steps were originally conceived for that model and, for some reason, ended up on these export chassis. You can imagine a low-ride-height M series, with the bumper mounted higher up (and further forward, to clear the rest of it), and the step being raised level with that.
Whatever, it is part of Sandbach’s history of making fibreglass moulds for fun.
I think it’s to stop the step fouling the tyre when you tilt the cab
ERF MAN:
[zb]
anorak:
Sorry chaps- the ground clearance argument does not stack up, as the bumper is forward and below the step, so that will always foul first. OK there might have been versions without a bumper, for severe off-road work, but there are notIf you look at the B series-era M series, it has a step of similar proportions. Then look at the later M series, which has exactly the same lower panels as the C. I suggest that the “low profile” steps were originally conceived for that model and, for some reason, ended up on these export chassis. You can imagine a low-ride-height M series, with the bumper mounted higher up (and further forward, to clear the rest of it), and the step being raised level with that.
Whatever, it is part of Sandbach’s history of making fibreglass moulds for fun.
I think it’s to stop the step fouling the tyre when you tilt the cab
Full marks sir. That is the best answer yet. I reckon you’re right. I wonder why raised the front bit, which is normally flush with the bumper? Maybe my mould design theory holds some water after all- maybe simply shuffling the bits of the mould about was how they achieved the shorter panel.
[zb]
anorak:ERF MAN:
[zb]
anorak:
Sorry chaps- the ground clearance argument does not stack up, as the bumper is forward and below the step, so that will always foul first. OK there might have been versions without a bumper, for severe off-road work, but there are notIf you look at the B series-era M series, it has a step of similar proportions. Then look at the later M series, which has exactly the same lower panels as the C. I suggest that the “low profile” steps were originally conceived for that model and, for some reason, ended up on these export chassis. You can imagine a low-ride-height M series, with the bumper mounted higher up (and further forward, to clear the rest of it), and the step being raised level with that.
Whatever, it is part of Sandbach’s history of making fibreglass moulds for fun.
I think it’s to stop the step fouling the tyre when you tilt the cab
Full marks sir. That is the best answer yet. I reckon you’re right. I wonder why raised the front bit, which is normally flush with the bumper? Maybe my mould design theory holds some water after all- maybe simply shuffling the bits of the mould about was how they achieved the shorter panel.
+1
robert1952:
[zb]
anorak:ERF MAN:
[zb]
anorak:
Sorry chaps- the ground clearance argument does not stack up, as the bumper is forward and below the step, so that will always foul first. OK there might have been versions without a bumper, for severe off-road work, but there are notIf you look at the B series-era M series, it has a step of similar proportions. Then look at the later M series, which has exactly the same lower panels as the C. I suggest that the “low profile” steps were originally conceived for that model and, for some reason, ended up on these export chassis. You can imagine a low-ride-height M series, with the bumper mounted higher up (and further forward, to clear the rest of it), and the step being raised level with that.
Whatever, it is part of Sandbach’s history of making fibreglass moulds for fun.
I think it’s to stop the step fouling the tyre when you tilt the cab
Full marks sir. That is the best answer yet. I reckon you’re right. I wonder why raised the front bit, which is normally flush with the bumper? Maybe my mould design theory holds some water after all- maybe simply shuffling the bits of the mould about was how they achieved the shorter panel.
+1
Do I win a tenner?
ERF MAN:
I think it’s to stop the step fouling the tyre when you tilt the cab
Full marks sir. That is the best answer yet. I reckon you’re right. I wonder why raised the front bit, which is normally flush with the bumper? Maybe my mould design theory holds some water after all- maybe simply shuffling the bits of the mould about was how they achieved the shorter panel.
[/quote]
+1
[/quote]
At least a foaming pint in the beer tent, I’d say! Robert
Do I win a tenner?
[/quote]
Blimey, I can’t believe it was that long since I last posted on this thread! Here’s nice 6x4 day-cabbed example with Taseco, Saudi from the ‘ERF clearing house’ thread this morning. The Arabic on the trailer simply says what it already says in English 
. Robert
