Lotus Europa Community
Lotus Europa Forums => Garage => Topic started by: Dilkris on Tuesday,April 06, 2021, 08:48:52 AM
-
I need some advice here, from those members who have lived through this and can talk from experience regarding the end result.
The rear suspension housings on my TCS are as shown... :huh: A PO obviously has been here before for reasons which are well known to us all, (bearings spinning in the housing...?).
I see 4 possible ways forward here:-
1. Leave as they are and Loctite with 648
2. Rebuild with TIG welding and line bore
3. Sleeve them
4. Buy new ones.
I don't have TIG Welding equipment or lots of money, (the latter takes the fun out of a rebuild anyway as if you were super rich you could just buy everything and put together a kit... :)) :))) - so options 2 and 4 are "out" for me.
This leaves options 1 and 3, the Loctite or sleeve route.
Now - I also subscribe to a general machining forum who's members know nothing about Europa's but do understand such a problem and the wide consensus is to simply Loctite the bearings in situ.
I am not a young guy so Loctite for me is a "bodge" - but maybe I am just not moving with the times.....?? :confused:
I favor sleeving them and line boring - but have I got it wrong? :help:
-
I'd say that a sleeve will be the most effective route in terms of a real repair/improvement to put these back in to service. If you have a lathe it should not be too bad. I would advise using a back counterbore bar so that you could bore both in the same set up and guarantee concentricity as much as possible. The other way would be to turn a plug down and locate off the first bore for op 2, but it is more complicated set up.
What's the cross hole? Mine don't have that...
-
Dilkris,
X2 on the sleeves.
I would also look into repairing the mounting threads and machine your axles to 30 mm .
Serge made a video of the process and tooling required.
https://youtu.be/FLb9N0t8DJY
Dakazman
-
Thankyou Chuck and Dakazman - axles already at 30mm (this is the TCS) - "yes" mounting threads need repairing, (this is a "no problem" area) - please see picture - this is a mock up of how I intend to do the machining - (I wanted to "see" how it would work).
Sorry - what cross hole... ?? :confused:
-
Mine don't have this
-
Wow Chuck !!! You've got eyes like an eagle....
Interestingly it is only this housing that has this - it is a 1/4" - 26 or 28 tapping for a grease nipple. The other housing (which has no damage to bearing locating faces) does not have this, suggesting perhaps that it was a PO fix to get grease into the housing to possibly lubricate a "screaming bearing". :confused: Probably accounts for why there was about 8lbs of grease in this unit when I took it apart..... :)) :))
-
That's what I suspected but was curious...
-
I think we did a sleeve on one of mine (it was 30+ years ago), we put one in from the inside with an outer flange Loctited in to the housing, it s houldn't move with the strongest Loctite but also held in by the rear arm & 4 bolts.
It wont hold 8lbs of grease if it has a sleeve
-
I had a spare set sleeved and they are now on the car. Worked very well, highly recommended.
-
I had a spare set sleeved and they are now on the car. Worked very well, highly recommended.
I remember you telling me this once on a PM John - I also recall, (correct me if I am wrong), that they were sleeved in steel. It is not my intention to sleeve in steel but aluminum as my lathe is a bit on the toy side and I need to be kind to it.
-
Interesting setup using the lathe as a horizontal boring mill!
If you can center things and can lock the cross feed it should keep everything concentric if you can bore from both sides in one setup.
-
Rear uprights are too important to skip money on. I'd spend the 680 pounds (with VAT) and get a new pair. Yes I paid to get a pair sleeved years ago, but only because new ones weren't available. Sleeving can work, but be careful on how much you remove and potentially weaken the casting.
-
If you can center things and can lock the cross feed it should keep everything concentric if you can bore from both sides in one setup.
That's the plan....:) :) - will post pictures when I actually do it. Presently waiting for aluminum bar and steel stock to arrive.
-
I'd spend the 680 pounds (with VAT) and get a new pair. Yes I paid to get a pair sleeved years ago, but only because new ones weren't available.
This is option 4 in my first thread and unfortunately for me it is not an option :'( :'( What happened to the ones that you had sleeved?? :confused:
-
Steel is so much stronger so you can use a quite thin sleeve. This means minimal machining of the uprights so less chance of weakening them. No need to press the sleeve in either. Just heat the upright in the oven and then drop them in. An aluminium sleeve would have to be quite a bit thicker to have anywhere near as much strength.
-
Not to derail this thread but I had one of my rear hub carriers 3D scanned to compare it to the model I made last year...It's nice to have friends with fancy tools!
I am still contemplating machining some from solid. I think the best reason to do it is to incorporate the rear disc bracket, and a rear upper link mount for CV axle use in to a single design. I would add pockets along the body to remove weight.
I am working on a more flexible brake and control arm solution too with two brackets that are bolted on either face of the original carrier. One for radial caliper, one for the upper control arm. The problem with the radial caliper bracket is that it takes up some of the real estate where the rotor could sit (closest to the hub) which then pushes the caliper closer to the wheel. This makes space tight for the parking brake arms.
If you want some world class reading check this out...
http://www.kirkhammotorsports.com/book_aoe/aoe_11.pdf (http://www.kirkhammotorsports.com/book_aoe/aoe_11.pdf)
What a CV axle!!!
-
Nice thinking Chuck!
-
What a dilemma...
whilst new hubs aren't cheap, I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea of removing any material from a 45+ year old porous, cast alloy suspension component.
I may face this very same scenario when I strip that area of my car ::)
To maintain the original set-up I guess the ultimate would be a solid, machined hub? (unfortunately the cost would be prohibitive for most of us)
Mark
-
What a dilemma...
whilst new hubs aren't cheap, I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea of removing any material from a 45+ year old porous, cast alloy suspension component.
I may face this very same scenario when I strip that area of my car ::)
To maintain the original set-up I guess the ultimate would be a solid, machined hub? (unfortunately the cost would be prohibitive for most of us)
Mark
Its hard for me to say exactly how much they would cost to make until I do one, but I would want them to be within reason. Silly expensive parts are just that....
-
Any progress on this Dilkris?
-
Any progress on this Dilkris?
Yes - steel arrived - I am presently making the "bracket" (ie that part shown in wood on my original post), which allows me to bolt the housing to the cross travel on the lathe. With this done I will make the boring bar, all being well I should be able to start machining the housings and sleeves by the end of the week. I will post some pictures tomorrow for how far I've got.
-
You will use shims to get your vertical height centered?
-
TurboFource - "Yes" and "No" - I will drill the 4 mounting bolt holes for the housing in the support bracket marginally oversize (1mm) to allow for movement (adjustment) in this plane. I will however also stand the bracket on 3mm bright flat bar before bolting to the cross slide to give me further adjustment, with shim stock, if the above 1mm proves not to be enough. Support bracket is being made from 125 x 12 (mm) bright flat bar.
Confused? I'll post pictures in the next update.
-
Is there any reason why the bearing housing cant be filled with weld then turned down to the correct size for a new bearing??
-
:I-agree:
This was Option 2 in my original post on this thread - I don't have TIG Welding equipment, (but I do have a small lathe), - I also don't know anybody with TIG equipment - going to an engineering shop is out of the question as A):- they charge big bucks these days for anything (and probably justifiably so) and B);- Health and Safety/Insurance/Public Liability boll**cks means I couldn't watch this being done and finally C):- I am unsure if you could actually get the TIG electrode and filler rod inside the housing, (the rear bearing housing is quite deep as it contains an oil seal also.)
In conclusion - I just wanted to try and do it myself - if its a cock up - guess its £400 plus VAT plus postage each from SJSports.... :confused:
-
Yup, it can be TIGed and remachined. But, a steel sleeve shrunk in is a better and stronger repair.
-
Tricky.
I guess the sleeving options are:
1mm wall thickness steel?
2mm wall thickness ally?
I'm figuring you'd end up removing at least 1mm on the dimpled/pock marked recess to clean it up.
An ally sleeve would only need a light press fit & Loctite.
A steel sleeve would see less metal removed but you wouldn't want to encounter an overheated bearing down the track which could upset the Loctite. Also, it'd need to be pinned in some manner to ensure security, I reckon.
Depending on how big the gap might be, a Loctite retaining compound could still be better.
-
Whilst I personally do not intend to use them in this application - it was suggested that "Tolerance Rings" be employed - now, I have never seen or heard of these but I must admit I was quite intrigued by them. See below link :-
https://www.euro-bearings.com/tol1.htm
-
Tricky.
I guess the sleeving options are:
1mm wall thickness steel?
2mm wall thickness ally?
I'm figuring you'd end up removing at least 1mm on the dimpled/pock marked recess to clean it up.
Thankyou for your comments and observations.
The second housing, which has not been "dimpled" for want of a better term, has a bearing fit like a "pr**k in a shirtsleeve" - insert the bearing, turn it upside down and it falls out.
Never the less, I am targeting a finished aluminum sleeve thickness of 2mm - I will machine these sleeves with an OD providing an interference fit to the ID of the machined housing diameter and press fit along with loctite or I will dowel. (Note: probability will be high that the sleeves will be suited per housing). Initially I will make the sleeves with a 5/7mm wall thickness and finish machine the ID when installed to the housings.
I am assuming that bearing fit (6206 - 2RS) on these sleeves will be "size for size" - am I correct on this?? :help:
Whilst the aluminium housings, on their own, are quite light and seemingly frail, it must be remembered that the area where I am working is contained and thereby supported by the radius arm fixture. The same of course cannot be said for the lower shock and lower link arm mounting point - which of course, as to be expected is very solid.
-
TurboFource - "Yes" and "No" - I will drill the 4 mounting bolt holes for the housing in the support bracket marginally oversize (1mm) to allow for movement (adjustment) in this plane. I will however also stand the bracket on 3mm bright flat bar before bolting to the cross slide to give me further adjustment, with shim stock, if the above 1mm proves not to be enough. Support bracket is being made from 125 x 12 (mm) bright flat bar.
Confused? I'll post pictures in the next update.
As per my comment above - please find pictures of update as to where I am. Tomorrow I will start the machining of the boring bar to accept the square to round tool bit holder - I then will have to make some guides as a slide fit on the boring bar to facilitate aligning both bearing housings to the boring bar.
Because I have limited workshop equipment for this sort of work - I have also included some photo's of how I got to where I am.
-
I like it! Being able to improvise is a great skill😉
-
I like it! Being able to improvise is a great skill😉
Lets see if it works first.... :FUNNY: :FUNNY:
-
...reading this post with interest. Maybe save yourself some time and minimize machine by using a Speedi-Sleeve? Unlike the Euro sleeves mentioned, Speedi-Sleeves have no corrugations and need to be driven in, on a bearing surface. Just a thought. If interested I have the catalog and could maybe get you to the correct sleeve for the bearing size you are using.
-
Now this is something else I have never heard of!!!
I have just Googled these and there are also YouTube videos on their application and fitment. They appear to focus on the "repair" of a surface which runs an oil seal and they are designed and sized to fit "over" a shaft as opposed to "inside" a housing. As I see it, and I may be wrong, they perform the opposite function of a Tolerance Ring.
Assuming they would work in this application (and as above I don't think they would), looking at the 6206 bearing, (30x62x16), the Speedi Sleeve in this size range would be as below, costing £34.50 - and I would need 4, £138.00 or US$190.00 - they are not cheap and when you are retired, this is a consideration. :(
I wish I had been made aware of these before bought a new crankshaft pulley though, (typical worn groove in the area where the oil seal lip runs), as this would have been the ideal application. :))
https://www.bearingboys.co.uk/product.cgi?id=64917&action=addtobasket&qty=1
-
Used LOTS of speedi-sleeves in my day. Absolute miracle workers. AFAIK, they don't make them for bores. Also the repaired surface is for seal runs only. The shaft diameter increases so you can't use them where bearings mount.
-
Lets see if it works first.... :FUNNY: :FUNNY:
Ha . . I like the set up, too. Looks good.
Mind if I play devil's advocate, though?
I'm wondering if it might not be a good idea to add an L shaped bracket on the chuck side of the housing, bolted to the lower plate?
This would increase rigidity markedly. I'm thinking slotted holes in the L bracket for some fine adjustment would also be advantageous because you'll be removing the housing to press the sleeves in. That means a re-setup is on the cards.
Also, it seems a shame that those two cross slide bolts are conspicuously right there and only doing one job.
Colin would smile. ;D
I originally figured an ally sleeve could happily rely on Loctite alone and do without a locating dowel.
It now occurs to me that when heating the stub axle during future servicing, that may well melt the Loctite on the sleeve as well.
Install two dowels at the sleeve pressing stage and machine off anything protruding during the final boring operation? Belt & braces?
I've never been clear re the bearing fit of the 6206.
It doesn't seem to be a common failure issue, so, in my mind, I've always noted it's well captured by the trailing arm side bracket and left it at that.
-
:I-agree: GavinT
I opted for 12mm bright plate because I was mindful of the join, I didn't want to weld these plates as I was worried of distortion - I played around with all the edge permutations until I got a true 90 with no day light, (note I don't have an engineers square so the V block was the best I could do.). With the 4 off 6mm x 30mm cap head bolts it is rigid and remember I am cutting aluminum.... slowly :)) so loading will be low.
Initial alignment will be a bit of a challenge - (I have a simple plan for this - will post photo when I get there...) - yes I could have made a support clamp that allowed for vertical screwed adjustment but, I really don't have the equipment for this. The bracket is bolted to the cross slide with 4 bolts - the 2 at the back you can't see.
I am going to try and press fit the sleeves into the housings whilst still bolted to the bracket - this should save me "set up" time when I come to align them again to perform the machining ID of the sleeves.
Your comments regarding dowels are spot on.
I agree the whole bearing set up is "strange" - only one of the 6206 bearings is "captured" by the trailing arm bracket (the outer bearing) and the inner bearing is held against this by the inner sleeve - all is good (somehow) - but if the bearing turns in the housing for a prolonged period of time - you will be where I am. :FUNNY: :FUNNY: Fit wise for the bearing to finished sleeve - I'm going to go for "size for size" :confused:
I may be wrong but this housing wear appears common to any rebuild - what is not common is how people opt to address the problem. I have only seen 2 methods clearly documented:- 1, Loctite and 2: replace with new housings. Hopefully if all goes well - this will be the third method. :)
-
Hello Dilkris,
I'm still wondering how that all works?! :coolpic:
also, I spy a Zeus book!
Mark
-
Understand the cost on the Speedi-Sleeves. Expensive in the States too, but a real time and money saver on expensive pieces. My thought was to press the bearing into the sleeve, measure the new bearing OD and then bore the housing for a press fit. Not what they were designed for, but a thin steel spacer none the less.
-
:I-agree:
Bloody good idea... !!!! I hadn't thought of that.
Had it not been for the fact I've already bought the aluminium stock, I probably would have considered it.
Interestingly, I can't find any data for the material thickness of the Speedi-Sleeves :confused: Obviously if my housings are worn/damaged in excess of this thickness, I would have to sleeve them first !!! :FUNNY: :FUNNY:
Most certainly worth looking at for the next set being repaired.... preferably by somebody else on the Forum !!
-
Agreed, I think the Europa housing looseness is fairly common, though I speculate that the bores are more hammered out than actually worn out.
I put it down to the nature of cast aluminium, the imposed dual duty as an upper link and the years that have rolled by. Somehow it all seems to hang together, though, so the addition of Loctite seems a reasonable remedy.
I'm thinking your sleeves are likely of a tougher material and should fare better than the stock casting.
As an aside, I have a Datsun 1600 (Datsun 510) rear axle housing here with which I've been experimenting.
It's fundamentally quite similar to the Europa arrangement but in steel and also uses 2 x 6206 bearings & a spacer. The bearings are a proper press fit and it puts up decent fight to get apart.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your fix with interest.
-
Of course if you can find an upright from another car that is similar enough to the original, that would be a lot simpler, but I think a fabricated steel upright is viable choice and if done properly, could end up having a similar weight.
-
Of course if you can find an upright from another car that is similar enough to the original, that would be a lot simpler, but I think a fabricated steel upright is viable choice and if done properly, could end up having a similar weight.
:I-agree: If they were to be made from steel, you could also engineer out the original poor bearing arrangement; I don't have the facilities or the skill set to do this but I did approach an engineering company last year (when I was thinking about my existing problem) showed them one of my housings and asked for a ball park figure to fabricate them, (inclusive of some personal bearing modifications)....
the reply was between £1200 and £1500 each, (in all fairness, they would be a lot of work.)
That of course, along with new ones from Lotus Specialists costing £400 plus VAT and postage, brings me to where I am today. :))
-
Yeah, that's a little expensive but as you said, you could fix a lot of problems with the original design and have a MUCH stronger upright.
-
I think a fabricated steel upright is viable choice and if done properly, could end up having a similar weight.
Thats how BTTC cars & WSC cars were often made, a superlight but super strong TIG welded assembly.
-
Speed -Sleeves are .011-.012 thick. There is a range specified on shaft diameters, so you would need to install on the bearing first then machine, your ID for a press fit. SKF will also custom make a sleeve base on your spec's. Now that would be bloody expensive! LOL
-
What if you repaired them with Devcon......it's made to repair equipment and machinable.
-
That's a good possibility well worth considering - never heard of it and in researching it just now see that "Devcon" make a range of products. I believe it would also key very well to the housing that has been "dimpled" in an attempt to decrease the bearing face ID - not sure about the one housing that hasn't. (You now have me thinking... :-\)
So far not at the point of having to decide as I am still making the horizontal boring bar set up to line bore the housings, which I am going to need in any event.
-
What if you repaired them with Devcon......it's made to repair equipment and machinable.
Or JB Weld, we have had good results with it
-
I'd be skeptical that even structural epoxy can restore worn housing bores. You might get a few months OK, but before long it will pound out. I've tried it for various short term fixes, but it doesn't last.
-
I hesitate to interject myself in this discussion since you seem to have a good understanding og the issue, but have you measured the two bearing diameters and the concentricity of the bores in the housing? I don't recall seeing the numbers.
If the bores are just a few thousands of an inch large and the concentricity is good (I don't know a spec but the bearing manufacturers will have it), then why not use loctite sleeve retainer, which will fill gaps from .010 to .015" on diameter.
-
I'd be skeptical that even structural epoxy can restore worn housing bores. You might get a few months OK, but before long it will pound out. I've tried it for various short term fixes, but it doesn't last.
I think I'd agree. When I was working we had Devcon and similar products but we tended to look on them as short term fixes. Great to get you moving but some of the claims made by all the companies we considered as "optimistic".
When all is said and done it's basically an epoxy resin with various filler materials but regardless of the filler, you've got to consider it as a thermosetting resin. Yes it's tough, yes you can machine it and even put in threads but it's not going to be as strong as the original steel or other metal.
Personally, for me with this application (hub carrier repair) a steel sleeve or Al weld/machine is the best repair option. Using Devcon or similar materials then machining for me is no better than dropping the bearing in place over those dot punch marks and using one of the large gap filling bearing fit compounds - it's going to have the same result as far as bearing life goes.
When the time comes for new bearings the Loctite (or other bearing fit compound) will be simple to remove and replace again. It wouldn't surprise me if the Devcon broke up on removal, or if you're very unlucky, when pressing a bearing in to place if you went for the "add Devcon/machine to interference fit" approach. Back to square one.....
Incidentally, despite the above sounding like "Filled Epoxies are Rubbish" it's not really the my view. They are great to get you out of a hole and in some cases are permanent repairs, you've just got to pick your application to suit.
Brian
-
Hello Dilkris,
I'm still wondering how that all works?! :coolpic:
also, I spy a Zeus book!
Mark
It will all become apparent in future photo's - I hope :)) You have sharp eyes - it is a PRESTO reference "book" I've had for years - use it for thread tapping data.
-
I definitely spy a Zeus book! (under the Presto pocket book)
Mark
-
I definitely spy a Zeus book! (under the Presto pocket book)
Mark
:I-agree: I pulled them all out..... and you are correct - you have eyes better than an eagle!! :FUNNY:
-
Not on the same subject as sleeving or Loctite, but on the same component. I was working on the problem this afternoon when I stood back and looked at the housing in the lathe - and more to the point, how I had mounted it.
On the list of other things to do with these housings are of course the several stripped/badly worn 5/16" UNC tappings - as you all know there are 8 in each housing - 4 per side; interestingly they are machined on a common axis. (Unusual for Lotus to do something "normal..." :)
Because I wanted room for adjustment on the "jig" I used 6mm stud bar to hold the housing in position - but upon installation of the housings to the radius arms, why not drill these fixtures out to 8.5mm (say) and use 8mm through bolts? (Note: the drill size, if I was to repair the damaged threads with 5/16" helicoils is 8.2mm )
Is this a common modification or is it not advised for some reason I have missed?
-
You would be putting tension on the mounting ears. It would “probably” not be a problem but I don’t see an advantage to the through bolts. I think it would actually be less secure.
-
I hesitate to interject myself in this discussion since you seem to have a good understanding og the issue, but have you measured the two bearing diameters and the concentricity of the bores in the housing? I don't recall seeing the numbers.
If the bores are just a few thousands of an inch large and the concentricity is good (I don't know a spec but the bearing manufacturers will have it), then why not use loctite sleeve retainer, which will fill gaps from .010 to .015" on diameter.
I have between 6 and 12 thou oversize on the bearing housings, (this I can measure), so "yes" this falls into the tolerance of what Loctite says it does "on the tin". As regards concentricity, this is difficult for me to actually measure, however, in playing around and setting up one housing (vertical link) in my home made rig (see previous photo's), eccentricity in the 2 bearing housings clearly prevails - I can "see it" but I do not have the instruments to measure it - with my "eyecrometer" - I estimate this at 5 thou.
I find this interesting as I personally doubt (pre CNC) that these housings were originally machined under a line boring operation, (its very time consuming), and would probably have been done on a mill using the faces of the housings (twice remember) as the datum reference, this method of course could allow for eccentricity on 2 axis. :(
The consensus of opinion on this subject appears to weigh heavily towards Loctite.
-
The concentricity doesn't matter too much right down to the last thousandth of an inch if you are boring & inserting a single housing, then boring for both bearings in one operation without moving it from the lathe (difficult), the brake drum / backplate can accept some tolerance becuase of the sliding cylinder
-
:I-agree: I intend to bore for both bearings in one operation without removing the housing from the lathe.
My focus is on achieving a good fit and zero eccentricity for the 2 paired bearings; as you know, the 6206 is a single row deep grooved ball bearing and these will not be comfortable having to operate within an eccentric environment.
-
:I-agree: I intend to bore for both bearings in one operation without removing the housing from the lathe.
My focus is on achieving a good fit and zero eccentricity for the 2 paired bearings; as you know, the 6206 is a single row deep grooved ball bearing and these will not be comfortable having to operate within an eccentric environment.
Are you going machine the outside of the insert, then align & bore the housing then push the insert in using the lathe & loctite it in, then machine the internals of the insert.
-
I am first going to machine (line bore) the worn housings (which are not only butchered, worn oversize, oval and eccentric), to a maximum ID of 64.40mm in order to achieve a "circle". (This dimension has already been ascertained and shown to be varying from bearing housing to housing - 64.40mm proved to be the max )
I will then machine the sleeves to fit (size for size on the OD - 64.40mm ) with a wall thickness of 5/6mm (so as they are stable enough to be pressed into the housing), Loctite and pin with 3mm aluminum dowels.
Upon completion I will line bore again, reducing the ID of the sleeves to "size for size" for the 6302 bearings, - which will "drop in" - (I hope) - after sitting in the freezer overnight.
I will end up having sleeved the housings with aluminum sleeves having a wall thickness of a little over 2mm.
I will post pictures in a couple of days to close the thread.
-
Steel doesn’t shrink much, or at all, when frozen or most ball bearings would seize at -40.
-
Upon completion I will line bore again, reducing the ID of the sleeves to "size for size" for the 6302 bearings, - which will "drop in" - (I hope) - after sitting in the freezer overnight.
It's easy enough to calculate if that's going to work. (I know, that takes all the tension and drama from the occasion ;) )
To do the calcs properly you'd probably want the volume expansion but that would be messy to post here without math functions on my keyboard so I'm going for a very rough idea from linear expansion.
linear expansion = (coefficient of expansion) * Original Length * (Temperature change)
Coeff. for steel is roughly 11 x 10-6 (10 to the minus 6), Aluminium almost double that at 23. If your freezer is at -20C then the temp change will be between (minus) 30-40C. For ease of argument, let's take the diameter as 50mm and consider it as a simple 50mm rod that you want to slip into the housing.
contraction = 40 x 50 x 11 x 10-6 = 0.022mm (assuming I've got my decimal places right).
Is that enough ? theory says yes but I don't know in practice with the round circle of a bearing and the depth it needs to drop in.
I would probably help things along by warming up the housing because Al has twice the thermal expansion of steel. The limiting factor will be which loctite you pick but I'd expect 100C should be do-able by most grades and the liners will be pinned as well. That should give you at least double the gap to work with ?
Brian
-
I have replied to the above Brian as a PM.
-
I met a guy on line in Michigan who is looking to "borrow" a pair of rear up rights so he can manufacture them. I believe he wants to make them work with Knock off wheels. If you have any interest I can forward he email. I am planning to give him a front hub sometime this summer for his project.
-
I met a guy on line in Michigan who is looking to "borrow" a pair of rear up rights so he can manufacture them. I believe he wants to make them work with Knock off wheels. If you have any interest I can forward he email. I am planning to give him a front hub sometime this summer for his project.
I am the wrong side of the pond and the wrong type of owner to add value to this - but there are members that have spare rear uprights sitting on shelves - (and also are comfortable in modifying the original Chapman vision) - so I'm sure they will jump in and become involved in this opportunity.
-
:trophy:
I definitely spy a Zeus book! (under the Presto pocket book)
Mark
:I-agree: I pulled them all out..... and you are correct - you have eyes better than an eagle!! :FUNNY:
-
Any progress on housing repair?
-
Any progress on housing repair?
Hi TurboFource - "yes" indeed !! - what is remaining is to finish line boring the sleeves (which are now pressed and pinned in the housings) to 62mm c/w interference fit for the bearings. I will post pictures of all the stages of the operation before the end of the week.
In the interim - please see photo, (so you know I am really doing it... :)) :))) - this was a picture I took of the items prior to "assembly" - you should be able to figure out what my thinking was :FUNNY: - if not - it will become clear when I post in detail later as referred above. Chris
-
Nice!
-
Every picture tells a story - so this in effect closes this thread - it has been quite a journey.
As can be seen I opted to sleeve the housings by making a purpose built jig and boring bar, (this being documented in earlier posts in this thread.) - this route was chosen more as a personal challenge - I just wanted to see if I could do it. :)
Also - if you have worn housings there are now definitely 3 options:- Loctite 638, buy new ones, or sleeve them ;)
The finished sleeve wall thickness is just 1mm (aluminum) - I opted for this because A): my lathe would struggle turning this diameter in steel, B): it was not my intention to strengthen the housings, but to make good worn/oval bearing housings and C): I was mindful of comments made on the forum regarding the fragility of the original housings.
Couple of things I found to be of interest during the operation:-
1. The original housings appear very brittle, (they do not machine as you would expect aluminum to machine).
2. In setting up the housings prior to machining utilizing the 2 nylon alignment bushes I made for this purpose, (remember the housings have to be aligned effectively on 3 axis...) - it was very clear that the journals were not only oversize (obviously) but oval AND eccentric in relation to each other... :(
3. On one housing, the journal locating the outboard bearing was almost 17mm deep..... as you are all aware this is a critical dimension and should not exceed 16mm, (6206 bearing width). I am making good this dimension with 2 off 0.5mm shims during assembly.
The last photograph simply shows me drilling out all of the excessively worn 5/16 UNC tapped threads in the housings in readiness for tapping and fitting thread inserts, (Note: I am using 3 x D inserts to maximize on strength)
"yes" I read with great interest and respect all of your comments when I started this venture and I thankyou all for your input. If this was a commercial fix, then Loctite 638 it would have been....
Cost wise, it cost £80 (US$110) in materials and £24 (US$33) for the 3XD thread inserts and about £2000 (US$2,772) in labour at £30/hr .... :FUNNY:
But if I had to do it again - with a bigger lathe and the sleeves pre machined for fitting, you could easily do the whole operation in a day.
-
You're obviously a genius, Dilkris. Well done, you.
Were the nylon alignment bushes in the original plan?
I presumed the boring bar heft was deemed sufficient for rigidity, no? . . or was this a belt & braces measure?
How big is your lathe?
Anyway, it's the end result that counts and it looks brilliant. :trophy:
-
Great work!! :beerchug:
It's too bad you lathe couldn't handle steel for your sleeves but I think the aluminum will do what needs to be done.
Can you remind us what alloy you used for the sleeves?
-
Were the nylon alignment bushes in the original plan?
I presumed the boring bar heft was deemed sufficient for rigidity, no? . . or was this a belt & braces measure?
How big is your lathe?
Many thanks - I knew I was going to need alignment bushes to first set up the housing on the lathe - I considered making them from aluminum also, but in consideration of the worn surface finish on the housings I realized this was pretty pointless - I just needed bushes that would give me what I call "eyechrometer" measurements and decided Nylon would be fine - easy to machine and also "free" - I had a Nylon bread board in the garage.... :FUNNY: (Note: Ideal for making bushes)
The size of the boring bar really was driven by the length of the square to round tool bit holder that I tracked down from Canada - (I could have machined this down - but didn't want to) - "yes" - end result was probably an overkill, but it proved very rigid.... :) :)
Lathe is a bit of a toy - it is an EMCO Compact 8 (you can see it in the distance on the photo showing me pressing the sleeves in the housings - Image 09). Chris
-
Excellent work! I like your line bore set up.
-
Great work!! :beerchug:
It's too bad you lathe couldn't handle steel for your sleeves but I think the aluminum will do what needs to be done.
Can you remind us what alloy you used for the sleeves?
No idea tbh - I bought it from a steel supplier here in the UK that supplies material cuts to length, (Aluminum Round Bar 69.9mm), I am sure there will be a spec sheet for it but.... :confused:
It was obviously hugely uneconomical to make sleeves like this, but I could not find heavy walled aluminums pipe/tube in the dimensions needed. (Refer IMG 08 - you can see the round bar left over here.) I also used it for making the press adapter for pressing in the sleeves prior to final machining (IMG 09)
-
Nicely done!
-
I had a personal message asking how I finally got on with this venture - so I post the following to effectively close the thread - as with most posts, the story is in the pictures - but a couple of points I thought worthy of note. (For the Administrator, I'm not sure whether this should have been posted under "Technical Articles" - but the thread started in "Garage" - so it sort of closes it...?)
Please note that all of the below has been discussed before many times in some shape or form.
The housings components (bearings and oil seals) assembled easily with minimal effort from the press , sleeves you will recall were machined size for size, following assembly I fitted the radius arms. (There is no alternative in this sequence)
Then came the drive shaft, shims, roll pins, stage which has been discussed at great length on the forum, (with some interesting approaches) - I opted with the following:-
BEFORE I assembled the drive shafts, (they were disassembled to fit new UJ's), I first slid on the spacer to the output shaft of the transaxle, (Note: this spacer also provides the running face for the output shaft oil seals), WITHOUT the "O Ring" and then slid on the drive shaft yoke. In this manner it was easy to set up the shims required to obtain that "step" required for the roll pin ensuring that the axial load of the drive shaft is transferred to the diff casing. On completion this, (which is quite easy as you are only handling the drive shaft yoke as opposed to the whole rear corner.... which is an awkward bl**dy thing). I removed the shims and kept them to one side.
At this point, I assembled the drive shafts and also made a "stub axle puller/extractor" from one of the original stub axle nuts which had 20% of the threads damaged by being abused with a hammer I would think by PO's ....
From here it's history - I fitted the O Rings to the transaxle drive shafts, applied silicon to the spacer in contact with this O Ring, fitted the shims and assembled - stub axle puller worked great....
There is some effort required to seat the O Ring and spacer and this requires pushing the drive shaft into the transaxle - I found a ratchet strap worked fine - machining down the end of an old screw driver gave me a LONG (you need this) punch for inserting the roll pins. I am working with a 365 box here and the gearbox casing actually makes fitting these pins awkward, (they probably actually fit best from underneath as you would have a clear line of sight with your punch - my chassis is on axle stands so working from underneath was not practical).
Finally, I can vouch for the stub axle puller working well as an extractor as I had fitted the wrong oil seals..... :headbanger: They have a 35mm ID and NOT 30mm as per the bearings (TCS) - which is obvious when you look at the stub axle.... :)) :))
Hope the above helps anyone about to embark on this journey. :beerchug:
-
Nice work and write up!
-
Thanks for the updates. Much appreciated.