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.
----------
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"
|