Roger,
Proud to say that Listers used front uprights from the MG. Slightly ashamed
to say yes, they broke. Have spoken to Brain Lister about it, and they
realized it was a problem even "back then". (ref "Archie & the Listers", pp
198)
The MG upright is pretty ugly -- threaded, which means lots of little stress
concentrations. I replace every few years, and magnaflux often. The early
steering arms also break, but the MG factory came out with a stronger
steering arm in 1959 that seems to solve that problem.
Several people have had replacement uprights made of better material & heat
treat but keeping same design ... others have modified the design slightly
for more strength ... some MGA drivers have (horror of horrors!!!) updated
their cars to MGB uprights, which are much stronger.
If I could work out a way to use the MGB uprights, but retain my front drum
brakes (required by my home club), I would do it. It does not make the car
any faster. I would not, and can not, run wider tires as a result. Am I an
evil non-preservationist? Don't think so. Would I be preserving the car
any better, if my factory upright brakes & turns me on my head? I hope not.
Frankly, Jack Woehrle is absolutely right. Modifications that increase
safety, but do not increase speed, should ALWAYS be allowed and encouraged.
I think that if Mr. Watts calms down, and re-reads the original message with
a clearer head, he will realize that he inferred way too much from Jack's
message (You see, I KNOW Jack's intent, I have seen his dimples & I was
trained in Palm Beach County!)
Regards,
Mark Palmer
>From: "Roger Sieling" <Rogsie@telesistech.com>
>Reply-To: "Roger Sieling" <Rogsie@telesistech.com>
>To: <JWoesvra@aol.com>, <vintage-race@autox.team.net>
>Subject: Re: British parts failure update
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:17:27 -0500
>
>Jack,
>
>I am unfamiliar with what was used on the front of AC's and Listers. Is it
>something common, similar in concept to the Alford & Aldor upright/ spindle
>that was used on Standard 10's and adopted into Spitfires and Lotus and
>damn
>near every small formula and sports racer from UK from the late 50 to 1970.
>I'm sure it is not that particular part but is this perhaps the larger TR
>parts or something off a Ford or large Austin? If memory serves me, the AC
>used a transverse leaf spring at each end. Are these Fiat Topolina parts
>like
>Cooper used?
>
>Roger
>
> >>> <JWoesvra@aol.com> 11/28/00 07:34AM >>>
>In a message dated 11/24/00 10:57:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, JWoesvra
>writes:
>
>This whole thing started when I posted this message that came to me. I was
>hoping that some of you would comment on it. I have no idea whether there
>is
>anything to it, but I think it is an interesting subject, and hence worthy
>of
>review. Some how we got into a fuss again about who knows what "true
>vintage
>racing" is.
>
>Jack Woehrle
>
><< My ex boss here in the USA (now retired) says the British had high
> tensile steel forgings that they either insisted on thru-hardening or
> lacked a good process of case hardening to retain a tough, malleable
> core. Apparently when they've reached fatigue they break instead of
>bend.
> This was known here at the time he was involved with importation
> of engineless ACs for Shelby, which is why Phil Remington there
> specified US replacements for that car's spindles. All cars receiving
> their engines over here had this done, sort of a preemptive recall
> campaign. There was enough visual difference in the parts that some
> concours people have raised authenticity issues over the substitution.
> I think he said the originals were shipped back so probably only
> several carsets made the round trip for the whole of the production
> run! I think Brian Lister dealt with a similar spindle problem.
>
> But, and this is dead serious --there is a potential epidemic of
> failure parts awaiting us, I fear.. There should be some test lab
> which can section apart any unfailed test part and then with Tinius
> Olsen tester verify if that is a potential root cause of potential
> failure in the whole class of parts -- the answer being to then
> commission a new run of CNC parts. The alternative to CNC
> is to CAST replacements out of 17-3 Stainless casting alloy.
> That material, once simply heated to 1100 deg F. and air
> quenched is said to combine both 180,000 psi yield with
> good elongation (ductility) properties. I am NOT the expert
> but can furnish two people to amplify this if desired -- the one
> I mentioned, and another a metallurgist specializing in stainless.
>
> Larry Gallo >>
_____________________________________________________________________________________
|