triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: quiz

To: Randall Young <ryoung@navcomtech.com>
Subject: Re: quiz
From: "Michael D. Porter" <portermd@zianet.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:03:54 -0700
Cc: Triumphs@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: alias-outgoing-Triumphs@autox.team.net@outgoing
Organization: Barely enough
References: <NCBBKDNEEKEOHAOIIOIIGEGOGIAA.ryoung@navcomtech.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
Randall Young wrote:

>>I picked four wrong answers for why they turned the engine around in the
>>Mini.  As far as I'm concerned they have not suffisently explained (in a
>>believeable way) the reason.
> 
> 
> I missed that one too ... my best guess is that the original design used an
> extra idler gear/shaft between the engine and transmission.  Turning the
> engine around got it turning the right way.

I've read in several places that the reason for the move was "water coming into 
the carburettors" due to the left-hand 
placement of the radiator, and I picked the carburetor answer, but according to 
the "Unofficial" Austin-Rover site, 
which seems to have lots of info on development, it was this:

"At this time, the engine was rotated through 180 degrees to face the bulkhead, 
so that the carburettor was now to the 
rear of the engine, instead of at the front, where it tended to ice up in cold 
conditions. According to John Cooper, the 
real reason why the engine was reversed, however, was that Mini prototypes kept 
destroying their synchromeshes after 
about 100 miles. Issigonis was reportedly very upset that this change was 
required because the car was faster in its 
original form. Why the engine was rotated, rather than Austin designing a more 
durable synchomesh can be put down to two 
factors: time and money - or more correctly, the lack of it. So, carburettor 
icing was cited as the reason for this 
reversal of the position of the engine, but the response of John Cooper to this 
suggestion was that it, 'was a load of 
bull!'

"Interestingly, the whole point of the re-orientation and the resultant 
introduction of the transfer gears was to allow 
for much smaller gears, which produced much less inertia, meaning that there 
would be less stress on the gearboxs 
synchromesh. Testing had shown that even with this fundamental alteration, the 
Austin A35 synchromesh would not be up to 
the job, but because the development of the Porsche baulk ring Synchro would 
not be complete by the planned launch date, 
they went ahead with the A35 system, anyway!"

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado15storyf.htm

Cheers.

-- 
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM

Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance.





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>