Have you ever heard that quote from Brian Eno about the Velvet Underground? He said “the first Velvet Underground album only sold 10,000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band.” What he means, of course, is that the Velvet Underground may not have been huge on their own, but their influence was, and the ripples of that influence have spread far and wide. Unsurprisingly, I think there’s a direct taillight-related analogy to this phenomenon: the taillights of the Triumph TR7.
Now, I know what you’re thinking, mostly thanks to secret NSA satellites: “Torch, dollface, come on! The TR7’s taillights aren’t anything special! In fact, they’re kinda boring! So what are you getting at?” Well, hold on a minute, I’m going to explain. Let’s start by taking a moment to talk about the TR7 (well, and TR8, which used the same lights) and its approach to design.
British Leyland had a number of small sports cars competing in the same space between MG and Triumph, and Triumph needed something to replace the aging TR6. The end result was mechanically and technically pretty conventional, but sported some really dramatic wedge-shaped styling that was striking and controversial from the get-go. In a lot of ways the TR7 is seen as the archetype of ’70s wedge styling, of which there are plenty of other examples; there was even an MG-badged version, but that never came to be.
Triumph really played up the wedge shape of the TR7, as you can see in this old commercial:
Damn, now I want a triangular television.
The Taillights
Most people today know the TR7 for its striking angular looks and the quality-control problems that plagued it, exaggerated or not. But I’m here to tell you that they should know it for its under-appreciated taillights, too. So let’s take a look at them:
Okay, so we have a pretty straightforward mid-to-late 1970s taillight, overall. It’s flat, has a shape like an isosceles trapezoid (I just learned that name right now) with rounded corners, and is a Euro-style tri-color lamp with amber rear indicators. It’s the indicators that I want to talk about.
The pictures up there show the indicator on and off. Left is off, right is on, and you may notice that the amber section is pretty muted when off. That’s because the lens itself isn’t amber at all; it relies on an amber bulb to produce the citrusy color of an indicated turn, as you can see by looking at the lens itself:
Now, while this clear-lens-amber-bulb method had been used for front indicators since at least the early 1960s, as you can see on this Peugeot:
…at the rear, I do not believe this solution was tried until the TR7, despite amber rear indicators being required in Europe since the early 1960s. Most carmakers simply took the straightforward and expected route and used vivid, bold, unashamed amber lenses, as you can see on these Jaguar Mk2 taillights:
While I’m fond of the bright amber lenses on most cars, I will admit that there can be an appeal to the more subtle look achieved by the TR7’s novel taillight design. I’ve been trying to find an earlier example of the clear-lens-amber-bulb at rear on some other decent-volume production car prior to the TR7, and I really haven’t come up with anything. I think this was a genuinely pioneering moment in taillight design, and I still think its influence has never been properly acknowledged.
Some have pointed out in the comments that the amber is not from an amber bulb, but an inner amber lens, as you can see here:
— Robin Marriott (@RobinMarriott) December 8, 2022
I’ve seen pure clear lenses and these type, but, really both accomplish the same end result: mute the amber look of the indicator. So, sure, there is an inner amber lens but there’s a reason it’s inside, behind the clear lens, and that’s to downplay the amber color when not illuminated. So, commenters, yes, you’re correct, but the main point still stands.
Car Designers Sure Do Have Opinions
So, why do I say this? Why do I think that the TR7’s lights haven’t gotten the credit they deserve? The answer has to do with car designers.
Based on conversations with a number of designers, including our own Adrian Clarke, car designers in general seem to hate having to deal with amber rear indicators, because they resent the need to incorporate yet another color into the rear end graphical look formed by the lighting design. In America, you can have taillights that avoid amber rear indicators, and even though studies show red rear indicators are significantly less safe, designers will still create red-indicator designs, because, I suppose, the lack of safety is less important than the cleaner look of a more monochrome taillight design.
Designers are absolute bitches about this sort of thing! They’re not kidding around, here. Ask one to stick a couple of dollops of orange onto the stunning rear end design they just made with a simple long red slash of a rear light signature and you’re likely to get a face full of gin and tonic.
But, the TR7 shows another way. You see, what the TR7 light showed is that you could have the safety (and legally required, in most of the world) benefits of an amber rear indicator without the garishness of a bright amber lens by simply keeping the lens clear, and letting the bulb handle the chromatic work. Look at those TR7s up there; the amber is subtle, unassuming, and the graphic look of the taillight is really just a red bar over a slightly peach-tinted white bar.
The Influence
And, significantly, this approach is incredibly common today, possibly even more common now than a vivid amber rear lens is. So many cars from the 90s and up have used this method to keep their rear light graphic clean and bold, and if you go into any parking lot today I’m certain you’ll find cars that use this approach within ten steps of wherever the hell you parked, or less, because it’s very likely on your car, too.
And, with modern LED bulbs, it’s becoming even more common, since LEDs that can light red or amber exist, and can be placed under a clear lens, ready to illuminate in whatever color is needed.
My point is that this wildly common lighting design approach was first seen on the quirky and oft-maligned Triumph TR7, and I almost never see that car getting any sort of recognition for this quiet taillight revolution it pioneered.
I’m hoping one of you in the comments may know of an even earlier example, because that would be an exciting thing to find out; but even if one does come to, um, light, I still can’t think of a car you’d actually have been likely to see on the roads from the mid 1970s on that used this taillight approach other than the TR7.
So take a moment to appreciate what the TR7’s taillight accomplished: it let fussy, petulant car designers get their simple rear light graphic looks they love so much without sacrificing the safety of an amber rear indicator. It’s possible, even if maybe unlikely, that the TR7’s bold taillight experiment actually saved lives as a result.
That’s why the TR7 taillight is the Velvet Underground of taillights.
Read more on The Autopian
• Today’s Taillight: The Dream Of The Ombré/Gradient Taillights
• Today’s Taillights: The Workhorses, The Ford And Chevy Truck Taillights Of The 1970s And 1980s
Want to write for The Autopian? Pitch us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
That Triumph commercial reminds me of the Dunder-Mifflin-Sabre Pyramid Tablet – “Unleash the Power of the Pyramid!” Weighing in at only 3 lbs and packing 50L of memory, the Pyramid is the “shape that contains all other shapes.”
My ’64 Austin Healey 3000 has lovely clear fluted glass front turn signal indicators that conceal amber bulbs. They look white until illuminated when the ridges in the glass disperse the mellow amber light. Clearly (no pun intended) this concept was used before the TR7.
This all misses the point that the TR7+ taillights look like cheap, tacked on afterthoughts to the rear of the car. They are hardly better than the ubiquitous trailer taillights that got thrown on all kinds of utility vehicles.
Thanks for the VU shout out…one of my favorite bands. Perhaps greatest American band ever (4 stellar albums in as many years).
CCR had 3 in one year, 5 in 3 years (They also released a sixth in the third year but it doesn’t quite hold up). I love both but output per years goes to CCR.
Haha my job finally caught on and blocked the login link, so now the only way I can post to the site is via mobile.
I sell auto paint and body supplies, this site is 100% work-related.
Also, Bill Caswell. Saw him wearing your shirt and tagged the site on his stories. That’s a BIG win.
Lay it on the line and fight the good fight, Torch.
So can we say that the TR7 tail lights are the Altezza/Lexus tail lights of the 70’s , remember that craze in the early 2000 with these Altezza tail lights, every aftermarket brands were trying to mimic them.
Our two(!) PT cruisers sport teardrop taillights with amber turn signal areas. At the junk yard I found a set with . . . (wait for it) . . . clear turn signal lenses! (?)
I haven’t researched a detailed history of their availability, but what I wanna know is: which designer decided the look of a PT Cruiser would be improved (har, har!) with those garish, amber monstrosities replaced with subtle, neutral clear?
[It occurs to me the clear lens is the freeing, libertarian option: the passionate owner can replace the amber bulbs with red — or some other anarchic color — if (s)he feels strongly about turn signal chromatic expression.]
In a slightly different direction, have you considered instances where this solution has been implemented and then reversed?
Ford Australia were a bit all over the place on this. They would facelift a car up front and switch the colouring of the taillight indicator as the only differentiator at the rear.
The taillights of the early 90s EF Falcon sedan were red over clear and then the facelifted EL had red over amber.
HOWEVER, the wagon tail lights were opposite.
On the earlier version, wagon taillights were Amber over Red and on the later version, Clear over Red, the complete opposite of the contemporaneous sedan arrangement.
However by the time of the AU Falcon, Ford had decided Amber = Low Rent, and so differentiated trim levels using amber or clear lenses in the tail lights.
The mid spec Fairmont got the clears.
Nice! Waiting on something about those hideous safety bumpers now. An abomination on an otherwise fine bit of ’70s styling. Always lusted after a 3.5l job…
That’s cool and all, and I do love me some amber turn signals, but I think the real story is just how great that TR6 still looks today. I think its design has aged much better than the 7 or 8.
In Australia, Ford introduced the XW Falcon in 1969 which featured the amber lens behind a clear lens for the front indicators. This type of amber lens arrangement continued for the subsequent XY and XA model, as well.
https://flic.kr/p/2nepjRY
THAT TR8, in those colors, with that emblem on the hood (there was another), was the first car I ever owned, and it spoiled me for life. I can remember like yesterday the PO opening the garage door and me seeing it for the first time. And, yes, when talking to the mechanic at the shop with the MG and Triumph signs on the wall for the inevitable somethings (it worked a lot more than it didn’t), someone new would always come in and ask “Who’s driving the Wedge?” And I loved it.
Interesting that this was new and novel, because the other day as I was driving I looked around at cars and realized there are hardly any new cars out that use an actual amber lens anymore. If they have an amber rear turn signal, they have a clear lens usually with an amber bulb behind. The current Nissan Altima is the only example I can think of.
Jason, you are probably right, having found the first amber housing behind clear lens taillight. You have also correctly identified the designer’s aversion against an additional (and sometimes mandated) colour. A couple of thoughts though:
i) you are living on the wrong continent, Europe would give you so much more variants, regulations differ from country to country and also in time.
ii) certain colours go great with clear/white lenses (front or back), others beg for the additional (darker, especially black)
iii) if you widen the scope, Italy has white lenses for turn signals since ages…they also employ white bulbs, and do require tiny amber additional side blinkers.
iv) while there was a transition from red to amber turn signals, it was allowed to have the opposite (yes, yellow brake lights!) until 1980 in Germany. Fun to be had by just pulling the 6.3mm flat connectors in the taillight lenses and switch brake and turn signal.
v) Sometimes the clear turn signal lens was used as a distinction, i.e. the Audi 200 (5000) had clear lenses which clearly (ha!) made them upscale
On another note: Side markers have to go! The only acceptable form is when they are incorporated into the lenses (which need to be wrap around). Otherwise they are a distortion of the sheet metal that invites rust to start. I strongly resent the notion I would be unable to tell the direction of travel of a car without them.
Are you actually Paul Bracq? That would be very excellent!
I think the Velvet Underground and Nico album is pretty hard hitting still to this day.
The TR7 tail light assembly looks half faded with time, like the amber turn signals of a sun bleached 1950’s Borgward.
Ok, that’s all well and good, but when are we going to talk about the ‘all-red’ taillight trend of the early to mid 2000s? And I don’t mean those annoying USDM cars that flash their brake lights as turn signals, I mean things like the gen1 Cayenne and Peugeot 607 where the entire lens is completely red but it magically manages to house amber signals and a reverse light, too. That always seemed like pure witchcraft to me but I believe it’s just some very clever optical tricks at play, though I don’t put it above Porsche and Peugeot to be making deals with the devil.
Generally that’s a slighly pink tinted lens or red striped lens with an amber bulb behind it.
My favorite was the Range Rover, which had a circular red turn signal lens that would magically light up as amber. When the signal was not illuminated, it was indistinguishable from the rest of the red light cluster. If designers hate to have any color besides red back there, then why don’t all manufacturers do this?!
Jason, there are taillights with clear lenses, and a RED lens underneath. The 2008ish Buick Regal uses the turn signal area for brakes/signals. I sent an email the other day, right up your alley.
No amber involved but Cadillac was doing similar things in the 60s. My dad’s /65 Cadillac has rear lights with a white lenses surrounding a red reflector like this: https://cdn1.gocars.org/photos/full/2831794-37855-1965-cadillac-coupe-deville.jpg
When the tail lights/brake lights/turn signals are on, it lights up completely red like this: https://notoriousluxury.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/c62.jpg?w=650
I can’t find a picture of it online but the backup lights light up the bottom half white even if the tail/turn/brake lights are already lighting the entire assembly red.
It’s done with a red tinted bulb in the middle of the housing and a clear backup light bulb in the bottom of the housing.
Another one with no amber involved. Acura also did a color changing rear light in the 1st gen CL coupe (96-99). They used some prismatic trickery to make the whole light appear red from the outside while allowing clear light to shine through the backup light portion when the bulb was lit. https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/~3wAAOSwrCZi-jv8/s-l800.jpg
I worked for Honda as an engineer at the time and remember that tail light being an expensive unit all in the name of style.
A couple months before I could get my license the band teacher asked me to go move his car before it got towed. This was amazing because I got out of study hall and I was going to drive a car. I knew what car he drove because it was a small town, but he said he had his son’s car and threw me the keys.
Green TR7.
I read the car mags so I knew it wasn’t anything spectacular, but as a 15 year old in a British car in the middle of a 1400 person town in the midwest the TR7 might as well have been a Lamborghini. Even now, knowing what I know, I still want one. Knowing there’s a TIL (Torch Lighting Article) on the TR7 makes it even more desirable.
Then again I daily a Jeep and have owned four SAABs and a Renault, so I’m obviously not that smart.
TLA = Torch Lighting Article. Can I get an edit button?
“…four SAABs and a Renault, so I’m obviously not that smart.”
I’ve owned five SAABs (currently one) and two Renault-engined Volvos (both currently), so you can take questionable comfort in knowing that you’re still smarter than me.
Haha and you are of course smart. (3 Saabs and an R5, also midwest). I remember seeing my first TR3 and had an unusual sense of joy, visually and physically, so I can’t slight you on the TR7.
Yeah, except the premise this article is built on is…wait for it…TOTALLY WRONG.
There is no amber bulb in the TR7/8 taillight assembly. The lens is clear but there is a plastic amber insert that is placed behind the clear lens. And the light bulb is the standard white or clear turn signal bulb. That’s how it is on U.S. market cars.
I assume that’s what’s being written about here.
Google my name and Triumph TR7 and TR8…and see what you come up with.
well, no, the premise still works. And, I added something about the inner amber lens. Inner amber lens or amber bulb it doesn’t matter, because the point is that the amber is behind the clear lens, and as such is muted and de-saturated. Triumph could have made the amber lens the outer one, like they did on their other cars, but they didn’t. The end goal remains the same.
But thank you for reminding me about the inner lens!
I will add that although I don’t doubt you’ve “seen pure clear lenses and these type” as you indicated in your update, they all originally came with the inserts. Anyone running an amber bulb without the insert is doing so either because of a personal desire to make the amber appearance even more muted when off or simply as a way of compensating for a missing insert; Triumph didn’t ship them that way.
I mean, all the ones I’ve seen have been old and worked over a lot. Missing inner lenses there were just one of many missing bits. But, as I said, the result is what matters, and it’s the same regardless of amber lenses or bulbs. In fact, many modern clear-lens-amber-light taillights use a little inner amber lens, too.
That’s a good point about modern examples. I should have specifically stated in my earlier comment that I couldn’t think of any other rear examples earlier than the TR7, not just other rear examples in general. There are certainly earlier front examples that use this same method.
JT don’t be so defensive; an inner lens is IMPORTANT STUFF!
Where does an inner amber lens begin and an amber bulb end?
Mine didn’t either. However, it was a Solihull car – any chance some of the previous disaster factories like Speke cobbled something together with amber bulbs?
This was wrong earlier and still is:
“it relies on an amber bulb to produce the citrusy color of an indicated turn, as you can see by looking at the lens itself…”
There is NO amber bulb. There was never an amber bulb from the factory.
I am happy to go to my garage and photograph the bulb in my car for you…
Mine didn’t either. However, it was a Solihull car – any chance some of the previous disaster factories like Speke cobbled something together with amber bulbs?
Oh, God, now I’m going to try and do something stupid. Again.
https://twitter.com/RichSTruett/status/1459133958030041088
JRW:
I can confirm that the silver TR in my Tweet DOES NOT and never did have amber bulbs in the rear taillights.
My other car, which I built this year, a ’79 with a 3.9-liter V-8 and a 4-speed ZF automatic, doesn’t either. Never did.
Seriously: It’s great to see the TR7/TR8 get any love these days, even if the premise is as flimsy as a Lucas electrical system. Thank you, Jason.
These last TRs can be really great cars — if you know your way around the BL parts bin and if you know how to ask the right questions. Lots of parts from the factory bolt right in and solve nearly all the shortcomings.
I am really surprised David Tracy has not owned one…
Read your roadtrip story, and I’ll match it. I drove from Quantico VA to Gainesville FL and back on a three day weekend, just to see a girl. Fantastic drive, I hear she and her husband have been very happy since about a month after that.
Out of 2,700-ish built, though, I haven’t found a survivor I’d want during my periodic wandersings across the internet. Just might keep looking though.
And virtually every TR8, and most of the TR7s, were built for the NA market.
Well, this is awkward but the reason “the amber section is pretty muted when off” is not because of the bulb but because there’s an amber plastic insert behind the outer lens in that position. The bulb itself is colorless. The photo of the unmounted completely colorless lens is only of the outer lens without the amber insert.
Other companies have done similar things with front turn signals, SAAB for example on the 96 as a way of turning their colorless signals amber, but I can’t think of any other such rear turn signals offhand.
Thanks. I also wondered how the reflections from a round orange bulb could be so square shaped.
I wanted a tr7 when I was a teenager , we were both much fresher then.
Neither I nor the tr7 have aged as well as others!
And I still see one and my heart does flip-flops!
So does the heart of every mechanic who ever worked on one…
As a one time body shop manager in a BL dealership, my heart does flip flops, too. I made so much money on these just from them rear ending other cars. They would wedge themselves underneath the rear bumper of much larger American cars, and if I was lucky, they had their headlights on. That meant replacing the head light buckets, liners and bezels, the headlights, the motor and actuating arms that controlled the headlights, and sometimes even the mounting panels that ran perpendicular to the core support. It was a lovely time.
I still hate the hell out of the general looks of the TR7, with all those stupid lines pointing in different directions. And that high stance look, where the wheel centers are almost below the body, like it was some kind of Renault 4 or Land Rover or something. Not suitable for a sports car at all.
Quite good tail lights though. Thanks for pointing that out ????
The ???? was just me trying to do a thumbs up smiley, to see if the new commenting system could take that. Obviously it runs on British Leyland technology also 😉
You just helped me identify what it is that makes me dislike these. On paper I would love how they look: a small British roadster with a weird wedge shape? Bring it on! But somehow these always struck me as having some kind of design weirdness I don’t like, and it may well be the exagerated ground clearance. I’ll have to look for pictures of lowered ones, just in case (if there are any lowered ones; the wheel wells certainly don’t look like there’s much margin for lowering).
I am mostly excited to see a picture of a British taillight actually lit up. Revolutionary!
“and even though studies show red rear indicators are significantly less safe, designers will still create red-indicator designs, because, I suppose, the lack of safety is less important than the cleaner look of a more monochrome taillight design.”
This is why they should not be called designers and this should not be called design. Less functional but prettier is styling, not design. Especially, especially, when compromising safety. Tail lights are in fact safety equipment and should be treated as such well before stupid branding exercises are considered.
As a former TR6 owner I can attest to the effort and wiring shenanigans needed to get lights like that to glow, much less actually light. The picture above is rare indeed!
I would be pretty sure the colors are required by the Federal Motor Vehicles Standards for the US, the largest market, and not the designers. That’s why we got stuck in the past with 7″ sealed-beam headlights for decades after Europe realized they were stupid. And why a whole lot of people now have “Euro” lights, which of course are sold and used only for off-road purposes.
So I take it you would not be a supporter of BMW’s annual turn signal subscription then?
The BMW turn signal subscription program has been a failure, you know – almost nobody signed up for it.
“This is why they should not be called designers and this should not be called design. Less functional but prettier is styling, not design.”
I’m an automotive engineer and I’ve worked for several OEMs. We all call the “design” department “styling” unless one of them is in the room (because they will throw their crayons on the ground and have a little cry). I respect what they do and certainly can’t do it myself, but to me the design process is taking a concept to a fully detail production solution, not stopping after doing a pretty model and then letting hundreds of engineers try to find a way to make it actually work, while bitching about them.
I could forgive their aesthetic priorities if they didn’t frequently display a lack of basic car knowledge, like why a transverse engine can’t be on the vehicle centerline or that number plates exist.
Some of my most fun projects have been working with styling though, it’s fun to fight with someone over something other than cost for a change. I had a project to do an NVH cover over an engine, and told styling they could have any shape the wanted as long as it would fit in a particular sized space in the car defined by a box, thinking we could have a talk about draft angles and the cost of injection molding tooling slides later if needed. The first thing I asked when they presented their solution was “does it fit in the box” and they said “no”. The following two versions also didn’t fit.
My dad was a structural engineer and had a similar relationship with architects. Pretty pictures don’t hold the roof up.
I mean… in a lot of industries, “engineer” and “designer” are literally the same position. An engineer is someone who designs devices. I was chatting with someone at a party and when I asked what he did, his reply was, “I design components for commercial pumps.” “Oh, so you’re a mechanical engineer then?” I inquired. “That’s right,” he replied.
Pretty sure @ADDvanced (was it?) is here, and he, especially, and I have been fighting this fight on another forum. He and I are of the opinion that “It looks like that for a purpose, the form you suggest adds nothing and probably takes away function, it’s absolutely iconic, and “If it works, It’s not stupid.”
The thread got a little out of control, but it was fun while it lasted.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/1130110-ducktail-critique-industrial-design-perspective.html
>waves<