[TR] distributor advance

Paul Tegler ptegler at verizon.net
Mon Mar 2 21:16:23 MST 2020

now THAT makes more sense...perhaps I missed a previous comment 
regarding the fact that the spring was not the right (same) physical length.



On 3/2/2020 3:59 PM, Michael Porter wrote:
> On 3/2/2020 1:45 PM, Paul Tegler wrote:
>> Having studied this over and over again, even have gone as far as 
>> redesigning the whole timing system (during a F.I and full wasted 
>> spark conversion)� ... and with simple physics behind me I can 
>> comfortably say your empirical data has to be flawed....no nice way 
>> to say it.
>> simple physics.... a tighter (stronger) spring will not extend as far 
>> as a lighter spring under the same weight applied.
> Wasn't it Randall who said early on that the main spring, though 
> stiffer, was loose in its connection, which would account for the 
> quick advance off idle?� In the case of the advance/idle retard 
> mechanisms, the object was to get the engine at idle to burn off 
> residual fuel in the exhaust manifold by retarding timing, but there 
> was also a need for getting the advance up quickly since that was 
> essential for off-idle performance, and slack in the spring mounting 
> would accomplish that.� Only when that slack was taken up would the 
> stiffer spring come into play and slow the rate of advance with rpm.
> Cheers.
Paul Tegler
ptegler at verizon.net  www.teglerizer.com

More information about the Triumphs mailing list