EU Bans Rolls-Royce's Illuminated Spirit of Ecstasy for 'Light Pollution'

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Those of you familiar with vintage motorcars will recall that there was once a period in history where hood ornaments weren’t the classy exception but the rule. Automakers have been affixing their corporate iconography to the top of vehicles since before there were seat belts, tapping members of the animal kingdom, indigenous leaders who opposed the British (back when such things were acceptable), winged letters of the alphabet, rocket ships, and just about everything else one could imagine wanting to stick atop an automobile. But most of those have been modified to suit the times and/or relocated onto the grille in an effort to avoid impaling pedestrians (Ed. note: And perhaps theft. I think my grandparents had the hood ornament stolen off their mid-’90s era Buick once. — TH).

While a few companies attempted to get around government safety regulations by implementing flexibly mounted hood ornaments designed to avoid stabbing the person you’ve already done the disservice of hitting with your car, just about all of them have given up the ghost by 2020. The only notable exception is Rolls-Royce, which has spent a fortune designing a spring-loaded device that snaps its famous Spirit of Ecstasy (aka the Flying Lady) down inside the engine bay whenever a moderate amount of force is applied.

The company has since decided to update its ornament to allow drivers to retract it on demand. It has also started offering a £3,500 option that makes Spirit of Ecstasy an illuminated crystal bauble that has suddenly run afoul of the European Union’s new light pollution regulations. Rolls-Royce will need to remove it from its brochures and customers will be forced to neuter their vehicles if they want to be compliant with the law.

While we can’t imagine panicked millionaires rushing to get these “fixed” after some cop pulls them over with a funny-sounding siren, the manufacturer will undoubtedly be scrubbing the option to avoid being fined. The manufacturer actually seems to have been aware of the regulations for a while. But wasn’t clear what would need to be done as Brexit negotiations continue, seemingly without end.

“In February 2019 we sent our dealers a bulletin saying we were removing the option of an lit Spirit of Ecstasy. It was no longer to be sold to customers. It came off the options list,” a Rolls-Royce spokesman told The Daily Mail. “Sadly, we are telling our customers that we will by law have to disconnect their Spirit of Ecstasy.”

The latest hubbub seems to stem from dissatisfied owners who don’t see any good reason to modify their mega-luxury vehicles based on regulatory guidelines focused on seemingly innocuous design choices. Unlike some other outlets that mocked Rolls-Royce owners as decadent capitalists and sarcastically treated this as a non-problem, we’re incredibly interested in how this might impact future automotive designs. The guidelines for what lighting applications constitute a “statutory nuisance” in the EU seem terribly vague. Once complaints of light pollution have been made, regulators need only to assess whether the glow in question serves any purpose. This has made everything from holiday decorations to security lights (business or domestic) subject to new restrictions.

That also makes Rolls-Royce the first automaker we’re aware of that’s being forced to change anything in Europe. But we’re betting it won’t be the last. Tons of manufacturers have added illuminated accents to the exteriors of their products in recent years. Mercedes-Benz will even sell you a Three-Point Star that lights up, assuming you haven’t already purchased one from the dozens of aftermarket firms offering the same item. All of that sounds as if it could easily be in violation of EU regulations if the right person complains.

As for those troubled Rolls-Royce customers, the company said it would happily swap out their glistening Flying Ladies for a traditional Spirit statuette and refund them £3,500 used to purchase the now-illegal option. But new vehicles won’t be sold with them anymore. Moving forward, Rolls intends on using the standard double R emblem by itself and retiring the Flying Lady.

[Image: Rolls-Royce/BMW Group]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 35 comments
  • Jeff S Jeff S on Oct 15, 2020

    I would file this story under who really cares. Most cars don't have hood ornaments just large ugly Billy Bass grills. Very few readers on this website will ever own a Rolls.

  • Schurkey Schurkey on Oct 15, 2020

    Any possibility of getting rid of Damned Daytime Running Lights?

    • See 3 previous
    • BigDuke6 BigDuke6 on Oct 15, 2020

      @28-Cars-Later OK. Not trying to be confrontational, but can you explain why you think they are "stupid"? I'm curious.

  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
  • Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.
Next