Author Topic: Berkeley paradox  (Read 8746 times)

steven mandell

  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
Berkeley paradox
« on: May 18, 2016, 12:21:43 PM »
Just getting started attempting to fit my mystery boxett (#2) Excelsior triple engine to its correct engine / trans and differential carrying cradle (subframe).
Ran into this apparent paradox, likely the first of many, not covered by the manuals with extensive hand written notes in it that came with the car.
The engine / trans unit does not readily fit into its proper cradle.  This is shown in the photo showing the whole power train tipped onto its face, and the cradle poised vertically, but like an inflexible shoe trying to be squeezed onto an over sized foot, just not possible without unlasing a tongue of sorts.

You can see part of the problem in the close up of the rear mount at the top.   It shows a floating stud that readily slides sideways within the confines of its cross drilled home at the back of the trans case.  It is shown slid fully to left register in the first pic, and fully to the right in the second pic.
However unless the clutch housing were to be removed, it cannot slip completely out of this confining arrangement, and therefore blocks the proper fitting of the cradle's side plate holes in alignment with its self.
I'd take off the clutch housing if I knew that this was necessary, but do not wish to open another potential Pandora's box if not.
I did something similar on my Petite's power train once, and got promptly rewarded by an oil bath.

The whole problem could have been easily avoided if the creators had seen fit to simply tap threads into the very amply endowed thick walls of this studs housing, thus allowing short non captive bolts to be fitted from both ends.  So I hope that there is some redeeming mechanical value to this otherwise needlessly painful arrangement.

In addition, I cannot even be sure if the front of the engine will then be able to swing onto it's triple rabbit ear flanges when I get past this impasse, as the clearances look almost impossibly too close from this point of the time line.  Be not deceived, despite the front engine cradle's mounts looking to be very close to the hole in the engine casting  bottom of overall picture) - this hole in the casting is destined to fit in the cross drilled hole in its cradle's side plate a few inches away.

Anyone who has removed either the Excelsior 328, or 492 has certainly had to discover the answer to this obvious apparent paradox, and will hopefully chime in right away.
I'm amazed that I saw no mention of it in my manual.

BTW - what's with the nuts retaining the cradle mounts sheet metal flooring pieces to the side plates?
Their bolts have a perfect 7/16" dimensioned hex head, but their nylock nuts are just the tiniest too large to be squeezed into a 7/16" wrench or socket, and any other size wrench, be it imperial or metric is too loose, or won't fit on at all.   I ran into a similar problem with apparent 5/16" nuts / bolts not fitting into wrenches previously in the fuel system.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 01:05:52 PM by steven mandell »

DaveMiller

  • Quite Chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2016, 12:34:30 PM »
Steven, when you talk of wrenches being "imperial or metric", which types of imperial have you tried?  Both AF and Whitworth?

steven mandell

  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2016, 01:00:30 PM »
I have heard of but do not possess any devil's scorn Witless worthless sized wrenches.
They are typically not available stateside.
What does AF refer to?
Was it typical to share thread pitches with "normal"  inch measured sizes, or to use the awkward off sizes only at one end of a nut bolt combo?

DaveMiller

  • Quite Chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2016, 02:32:05 PM »
AF normally means "across flats" when referring to spanners.  So an AF 3/4" spanner measures 3/4" across its jaws.  Whitworth sizes are less obvious, and less handy, as they relate to the diameter of the threads on the bolt, not the width of the bolt head.

I understand that Whitworth threads are deeper than most imperial threads, so perhaps stronger and more able to put up with repeated undoing?  My two Bonds use them, and I've so far been very good in keeping to them.

But, whatever, you don't expect a particular single bolt or other fixing to have nuts in different systems.  Different sizes, sometimes; different systems, no!

plas man

  • Quite Chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2016, 03:03:14 PM »
American fine ?  (AF)

DaveMiller

  • Quite Chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2016, 03:42:17 PM »
American fine ?  (AF)

Quite so - when it relates to threads.

Jim Janecek

  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2016, 10:19:25 PM »

BTW - what's with the nuts retaining the cradle mounts sheet metal flooring pieces to the side plates?
Their bolts have a perfect 7/16" dimensioned hex head, but their nylock nuts are just the tiniest too large to be squeezed into a 7/16" wrench or socket, and any other size wrench, be it imperial or metric is too loose, or won't fit on at all.   I ran into a similar problem with apparent 5/16" nuts / bolts not fitting into wrenches previously in the fuel system.

My first guess is the problem is not the bolts or nuts, but your tools.
Are you using cheap Chinese wrenches?

Rusty Chrome (Malcolm Parker)

  • Global Moderator
  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2016, 10:33:04 PM »
Found this chart quite handy when working on my Bond. Particulalry useful when you're looking for a spanner to fit the nut rather than an official spanner size that should fit the nut had it been in perfect condition.

http://www.dbtc.co.uk/index.php?module=Content&func=view&pid=180
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 12:25:13 PM by Rusty Chrome (Malcolm Parker) »
Malcolm
Bond Mk D - "The Bond Minicar solves your problem"
Nobel 200 - "Almost as cheap as breathing!"

steven mandell

  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2016, 11:40:29 PM »
No Jim, been using Sears Craftsman for many years.
Besides, the bolt heads fit perfectly, but the nuts are just big enough to be a problem.

Barry

  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2016, 07:08:36 AM »
Whitworth often used for castings where a coarse thread is required.
I was working on the Velocette over the weekend and found normal threads being used with Whitworth heads. 
Steven, you should get a set of Whitworth spanners / sockets because you will need them.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Precision-Reference-Drawing-Toolroom-Workshop/dp/B0000CLZUO

Big Al

  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 4578
  • Ranttweiler, biting the breeze block of banter
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2016, 08:39:46 AM »
Ah, the joys of a Berkeley, and a tool box. In my experience you need to be aware of Whitworth, the British Empire was bolted together with it, AF and you will probably find some cyclethreaded stuff too, BA, why not. The only thing that should not be on there is Metric. The confusion occurs as some threads are the same, but the spanner size will be different. So you either sort out the fasteners into sets, or you need all the spanners you can find to do simple jobs. A botched Berkeley is a nightmare for tool requirement. Yours should not be to bad.

I was under the impression the engine cradle came apart and was then bolted to the engine. But then I never had a triple. Its a job to remember after all these years. The front has two outriggers going onto mountings in the front of the frame. The rear onto a big mount shared with Austin J2 or some such. I have had those two sections bolted together. But I do recall having to tilt one engine into a frame that was different. It was a tight fit and the front went in at an angle, was rotated and slid into place, then the studs put in. More than that is lost to 20 years or so.
Messerschmitt set, Goggo Darts, Heinkel 175, Fiat Jolly, Autobianchi, Fairthorpe Electron Minor, Borgward, Isuzu Trooper
Citroen BX 17TZD & GTI 16v
Held - MG Magnette ZB & 4/44
For sale - Vellam Isetta, Bamby, AC Type 70, Velorex, Church Pod, Reliant Mk5, KR200,  Saab 96, Bellemy Trials, Citroen BXs

steven mandell

  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2016, 11:27:41 AM »
I believe that you are right about the front needing to go in first, and at an angle, then rotated / slid into place before attempting to bolt in the unwittingly captive but loosely sliding stud between the outrigger plates in the rear trans section.

After calling several members selected from the Vintage Microcar Club's roster that revealed them to be Berkeley owners, I hit the jackpot.    A Berkeley guru in Arizona who even has spares.
Through talking with him I was able to learn that there was a variety of transmissions, and engine cradle designs.          I believe that cradles were often 2 piece units that bolted together at mid length.
However, mine is a proper one piece 3 cylinder variant with three rabbit ear engine mounts in the front - 2 of which that are extensions of the side plates that you refer to that continue towards the rear to pick up the troublesome rear captive transmission stud.  (Reference to camperman van style of mount considered an appropriate insult.)

Trouble came from inability to separate these full length plates towards the rear to become enabled to stab them over said captive horizontal transmission stud.   This is due to my models one piece full length design, with the plates welded to a cross tube at the front and bolted together at the differential housing at the rear.
The front cross tube incorperate rubber mounts at its ends, and thus suspends the whole overhanging engine / trans and separate differential unit.

SOLUTION is to unbolt the differential at the rear, so that you can flex the plates out just enough to get them around the loose rear trans captive stud slid into a centered position.
This should be just possible at the rear of the cradle even though these massive full length side plates are fully welded to the cross tube in front.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2016, 10:59:31 AM by steven mandell »

plas man

  • Quite Chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2016, 03:16:53 PM »
once (if) up and running keep a eye on the U/J's .  any slop/wear will give trouble to the front axle/hub/nut/split pin arrangement , the front n/s will gave most problems . ( normal right hand thread ) , this could also transferred to the wheel nut's.

steven mandell

  • Prolific Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 890
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2016, 11:06:58 AM »
Not good with acronyms.  What is the n/ s that you are referring to?
What kind of problems am I likely to run into with the diff?

DaveMiller

  • Quite Chatty
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
Re: Berkeley paradox
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2016, 11:29:15 AM »
Not good with acronyms.  What is the n/ s that you are referring to?

OK, we're into transatlantic confusion territory here ...

(If you can have territory in the middle of an ocean??)

In British English, n/s is an abbreviation, not an acronym (we're a bit nearer to Greece, so we use acronym only when the short form is a name or word in itself, like radar, laser or NATO).  Even then n/s is going to get slippery:  it stands for "near side" (the side near to the kerb) ... but then whose near side!  ???

On a Berkeley (pronounced BAR-clee!), it'll be the left side as you look forwards.