On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:29:00 -0700 (PDT) "REICHLE, CHRISTOPHER"
<CREICHLE@nsc.msmail.miami.edu> writes:
>
>While working on my neighbor's car we cut through a ball joint about
>1/4 the
>way through on three sides. Conversation went like this...
>Me: you're going to need a new ball joint when you put this back
>together
>Him: Why, d'you think so?
>Me: yeah!, we cut damn near half way through it!
>Him: yeah, but look how thick it was where we cut it
>Me: I'm sure they made it that way for a reason, not so we could cut
>1/2
>way through and not worry about it.
>Him: Oh ok, I'll pick one up.
>
>Next day
>Me: See you got the car running again.
>Him: Yeah, I'm goinna get that ball joint tomorrow.
>Me: Your driving it like that?!
>Him: Yeah, it drives fine.
>
>He never did replace it. I think the reason I don't have the answer to
>your
>question is that most people that do things like this don't live to
>tell us
>exactly why it didn't work like they expected it to. I suppose that
>there
>was some lawyer at Rover that had the engineers put those stupid extra
>parts
>in there because of some lateral force/bearing cracking and wheel
>flying off
>legal crap.
>I see your point but I'm sure there was some reason probably
>pertaining to
>the design of the bearing. All of this was meant in good fun, no flame
>
>intended. I could tell you about the house PO that wired the house
>with lamp
>cord and it "worked just fine" but I'm saving that for a lucas
>problem...
>
>Chris Reichle
>
>P.S. Sorta like the stay rod which holds the engine to the tranny
>mount. I
>remember someone talking about how an engine shifted forward in an
>accident
>or something and the fan smashed the rad because somebody didn't
>bother to
>put that useless piece back on.
*** What we learned through this group is that the MG Motor Car Company,
Ltd, discontinued the use of the control rod for a couple of years. Early
cars and Late cars had it, but 72-73 cars did not. Apropos of the legal
questions, perhaps that's why the company was a "limited liability
company."
BTW, thanks very much to all of you who worked out this information.
The car is back in order and is running fine as of this afternoon. I'm
still thinking about ways to install a control rod. Any ideas?
Bob
> ----------
>From: todd
>To: CREICHLE
>Cc: mgs
>Subject: Re: Brake modultaion...help! SOLVED!
>Date: Tuesday, August 19, 1997 1:50PM
>
>REICHLE, CHRISTOPHER writes:
>
>> [ ... ] If someone decided to take
>> out the shims and torque it like an american car would be done you
>will
>have
>> problems. The torqing of the nut only squeezes the inner part of the
>bearing
>> (that does not move) between the castleated nut/washer and the cone
>with
>> shimms.
>
>This is something that I've never understood about the 'B, and when I
>can't understand something about the typically anvil-simple 'B, it
>bugs
>the holy shit out of me.
>
>What possible harm can come from eliminating the shims and the conical
>spacer entirely, and simply tightening the outer bearing until the hub
>spins freely without binding? It's not like the races are going
>anywhere, pressed into the hub as they are. And it's not like the
>inner
>bearing is going anywhere either.
>
>I once burned up an outer bearing, which welded itself to the stub
>axle
>and destroyed the spacer in the process. After brutal extraction
>(involving a monkey with a torch) I was left with a
>knackered-but-usable
>stub axle, and ran it without a spacer for two years or so without any
>problems. I finally replaced the stub axle because the torching left
>it
>slightly out-of-spec and the threads were marginal, but the bearings
>never suffered a bit. But I still don't use any shims, and it's been
>that way for four years now, riding solid as a rock.
>
>Anybody got any wisdom on this oh-so-British assembly?
>
> --
>
>Todd Mullins
>Todd.Mullins@nrlssc.navy.mil On the lovely Mississippi (USA) Coast
>
>'74 MGB Tourer that the babe called a "cool car"
>
|