Triumph - That was a year that was..

[Bfg]

Thank you Gentlemen & Mrs6C,  It's good to get Katie  back on the road, although at present I have more mistrust than trust - and so am constantly on the alert for issues.  And of course if you're focused on finding a problem, inevitably you will.  And the more you drive, the more you'll find. 

 

Yesterday afternoon I drove across to Bawdsey Quay, locked my bag in the boot of a car whose agreed insurance-value is close to double my annual income, and walked away anxious that someone might touch the car.    And so what if they did ! ? . . . Get over it Pete, it's not a Fabergé egg.!  

The mileage driven this weekend records as 109miles, but I don't know how accurate that is because the speedo reads 8mph slow.  Still.. none of the wheels have fallen off, the gearbox hasn't dumped its contents along the road, she hasn't burst into flames, the engine oil pressure is fine, and the water temperature is low and steady ..even though the exhaust manifolds get up & beyond 300 deg. c.

Oh how the older mind works.. !

Life seemed very much sweeter when I was an ignorant 20 year old, enjoying the financial independence of my first job, and the car was an £80 MkII Spitfire that I constantly drove as if being chased by a blue flashing light (..as on occasion I was).  And when I parked, look back over my shoulder ..and with a broad goofy grin think "that was bloody fantastic".  

Hopefully in time and with familiarity I'll find my way back to that sort of mindset.

Pete

[lesapandre]

20 minutes ago, Bfg said:

Thank you Gentlemen, It's good to get Katie  back on the road, although at present I have more mistrust than trust - and so am constantly on the alert for issues.  And of course if your focused on finding a problem, inevitably you will.  And the more you drive, the more you'll find. 

 

Yesterday afternoon I drove across to Bawdsey Quay, locked my bag in the boot of a car whose agreed insurance-value is close to double my annual income, and walked away anxious that someone might touch the car.    And so what if they did ! ? . . . Get over it Pete, it's not a Fabergé egg.!  

The mileage driven this weekend records as 109miles, but I don't know how accurate that is because the speedo reads 8mph slow.  Still.. none of the wheels have fallen off, the gearbox hasn't dumped its contents along the road, she hasn't burst into flames, the engine oil pressure is fine, and the water temperature is low and steady ..even though the exhaust manifolds get up & beyond 300 deg. c.

Oh how the older mind works.. !

Life seemed very much sweeter when I was an ignorant 20 year old, enjoying the financial independence of my first job, and the car was an £80 MkII Spitfire that I constantly drove as if being chased by a blue flashing light (..as on occasion I was).  And when I parked, look back over my shoulder ..and with a broad goofy grin think "that was bloody fantastic".  

Hopefully in time and with familiarity I'll find my way back to that sort of mindset.

Pete

My advice re:security is to use physical means (no not threatening passers by)...but a big bit of thick chain. My Landcruiser here which has been nicked before is now chained to a lamp post via the chassis. You could even have an attachment welded on. Nothing will stop a concerted attempt but anything is useful.

Those things that enclose the steering wheel are good too I believe.

[Dobloseven]

Lovely photos. Really need a windmill in the background though! Great to see Katie out and about. Realistically you're going to be fettling and improving her till the end of time, but she's on the road, being used which is what it's all about. Well done, give yourself a virtual pat on the back! I reckon the next project will be a custom made dog crate to fit exactly on the space behind the seats. 

[Bfg]

3 hours ago, Dobloseven said:

the space behind the seats

!! ..is pathetic with the later type of TR hood and  my modifying things so the seats sit this far back.  Presently there's only room enough in the back for a lap dog that I'd be embarrassed to walk with.  Or perhaps a nodding dog whose head has come off !

However, plans are afoot though to get rid of this hood and its frame, along with the prod into my shoulder, when I fit the Surrey-top back-light.   That ought to restore the rear-deck space to being a little better than a wedgie ..and the back-light will be a useful enclosure for a dog.   I'm thinking half-Labrador, as I had before (half size / crossed with a border Collie) or a similarly medium sized, dog that isn't stupid, nor too timid ..but at the same time is very quiet.  Oddly.., that's the same criteria for a wife !   

Pete

 

[Bfg]

  

On 5/15/2022 at 3:02 PM, Bfg said:

The car's handling, still needs a little fettling, or is that just me not used to the narrow track of a 1960's car and such quick steering.?  Possible the suspension will settle a little, but in the meantime I'll lower the front tyre pressures a couple of psi. I'll also recheck the tracking. 

To be honest I wasn't impressed with the handling at all.  Indeed considering the chassis modifications, the amount of investigation and checking, adjusting and checking again of the rear suspension back in October, and the work I put into the steel gearbox tunnel and getting it to fit well to stiffen the car ..you might well say I'm pretty disappointed. . .

I lowered the front tyre pressures from 30 psi to 27-1/2 and that settled the overly quick response of the steering.  And then I adjusted the track rod end to add a little more toe-in to the front wheel geometry,

That again noticeably improved the feel of the car and its steering.  But still she was over-steering, and feeling as if there was too much roll, and that the tyres were about to loose their grip around even quite modest country lane corners.  That's not a reassuring feeling.   I couldn't understand it.  Something was wrong, but what ?  I thought I'd been through everything..

And then in the evening it clicked..

Subsequent to setting the rear suspension's tracking, camber, and ride height, in October, which itself was interrupted by an intrusive hernia op -  I turned my attention to the front suspension and then to the broken-off grease nipples on the half shafts, the insecure fuel & brake pipes, the exhaust run causing the pipe to clonk against the chassis, and the  #@$%ing OIL LEAK !!!  from the gearbox and O/D. Plus water dripping from the engine-block drain plug onto / into the starter motor, and the dynamo giving up its ghost, all inbetween my repeatedly getting rained upon .. which then set me about extending the car's polytunnel..   

.. and before I knew it, it was November and I was replacing the RHS trailing arm.  < November 6th - here > 

 

Quote  "There are quite a few detail differences, and the castings were clearly re-tooled, so it may be that the new one may be from a later car,  ie., a TR6  (edit ;  that was incorrect - its not from a TR6).  Aside from the fact that Katie's  had a big STANPART cast into it, whereas its replacement doesn't - the most obvious difference is in the stiffening web between the coil spring cup and the tube which encloses the half-shaft.  I haven't run a tape measure over them to compare but as the part numbers are the same (marked onto each of these arms) I'm guessing they are dimensionally interchangeable.  I flipping hope so anyway !"

After fitting those, I immediately moved over to dealing with the loose steering and torn rack gaiters, the seized lower-wishbone trunnions, the brakes and seized hand-brake adjusters. There was no break.. it just went on and on until I found myself pulling the gearbox out ..to correct its stripped threads.. 

What I'd neglected to do, back in mid-November, was to recheck the rear suspension's geometry ..post my swapping out that trailing arm.

 

So that's what I've been doing ..and correcting, yesterday afternoon and today. 

There's really not a lot to show you that I've not already posted, last October, but yesterday I corrected the rear wheel toe-out tracking by removing the two shims under the outboard trailing arm bracket. It was toe out, whereas it should be zero to 1/16" toe in.  After a road test.. Yes, I could again feel the improvement - very much better tracking on straight but undulating roads surfaces, and less under-steer around corners ..but still things didn't feel right.  What I was doing was in the right direction but not enough.  

Today, I checked the rear wheel's camber, not by loading bricks onto the leather seats, but simply as a comparison between the two sides. 

The chassis was 1/2" lower under the RHS chassis rail (by the body mount) and the RHS rear wheel's camber measured +1.81 degrees (a 10mm difference between a vertical spirit level to the top & bottom of the rim).  As this was in an unladen state, I didn't know what it should be, but for direct comparison the LHS rear-wheel-camber measured +0.34 degrees, in the same state.  When the car is loaded (persons in it, etc., and around corners) the trailing arms turn to negative camber, which in turn helps keep the tyre's contact patch flat to the road ..and the car's handling feels a little more surefooted.  

 

I knew one of the trailing-arm brackets would need to be changed, and the inboard bracket already had it polybush pivot in the lowest position. So whatever I did.. it would have to be to the outboard bracket (by the sill). This was a two-notch bracket fitted with those notches down.  Referring to the model and the charts I draw back in October I opted to swap that bracket for a one-notch, with its notch down. This would alter the pivot-axis (raise that polybush) by 1/2" . . .

^ The yellow line in the middle shows the angle the polybushes were. The magenta line shows the angle I was adjusting things to.  That angle does look sorta radical (as it is drawn to scale) but drastic measures were clearly needed. I also knew this bracket change would raise the suspension's ride height on that one side, but as it was now sitting low again (with this trailing arm). lower than the passenger side anyway - I chose to accept it. 

 

^ Again to avoid torturing the polybush with twist (which is also a pain when fitting) I slotted just one of the bracket's mounting holes sideways to allow it and the polybush axis to align with the inboard bracket and its polybush (..I've illustrated this across the bottom of the previous drawing)  

^ Yes, the bracket could be swapped out, and refitted, without dismantling anything else off the trailing arm.  In fact all else I needed to do was to slacken the two chassis-fixing-bolts of the inboard bracket to get the twist I needed to remove (and refit) the outboard bracket's bolts.

^ to get the outer bracket's pivot (polybush) bolt to align, and back in (finger pushed in only), I did have to ease the trailing arm forward.  against the tension of the spring pushing it backwards.  I simply used a block and a wooden wedge between the rear of the trailing arm and the chassis rail to do that.  I say 'simply' but the awkwardness of this is in doing it on your own and not being able to see as and when the bolt hole aligns (hence the wedge to progressively work the block outwards, which in turn swivels the arm and that polybush forward. 

 

My test drive was limited by numpties driving slowly ..whenever I wanted to push Katie  faster around corners ..but first impressions of this setup are that the car now handles very much better. 

Upon our return, and with the suspension settled, I checked the camber of each rear wheel (again without  driver / passenger's weight but..) as a comparison against each other, when measured from the vertical spirit-level to the wheel rims.  Each are now the same with just 2mm difference (0.06 degrees positive camber) between the top and bottom measurements to the rim.  

Suspension ride height (underside of chassis to level floor) is now around about 6-1/8". That's a little more than I would have preferred but more importantly.. they are very close to being the same   It is no longer sagging on the driver's side (..until I get in ! )

And the rear wheels tracking on both sides.. is also now the same and good to go.. 

I cannot say why this replacement swinging arm, with the same part number, should have been different enough (production tolerances that slack ? ) to necessitate these changes, but that's immaterial because the IRS suspension's design, via the selection and orientation of those polybush brackets, easily accommodates them.

Job done. 

Hopefully more enjoyable driving from now on.

Bidding you a good evening,

Pete

 

 

[Bfg]

Norfolk & Suffolk Aviation Museum at Flixton Today

I think I'll head up to The Norfolk & Suffolk Aviation Museum at Flixton, (off the B1062 not far from Bungay) this afternoon in Katie  if anyone wants to meet me there for a wander and a cuppa. < here >  Well worth a visit if you haven't been recently

Pete

[Snake Charmer]

I have fallen foul of removing that cheap carpet, awful stuff. I also hate finding bodged repairs on customers cars, does my head in if I'm not allowed to fix them! The TR is looking good. 👍

[Bfg]

 

On 5/22/2022 at 10:20 AM, Bfg said:

Norfolk & Suffolk Aviation Museum at Flixton Today

I think I'll head up to The Norfolk & Suffolk Aviation Museum at Flixton, (off the B1062 not far from Bungay) this afternoon in Katie  if anyone wants to meet me there for a wander and a cuppa. < here >  Well worth a visit if you haven't been recently

Pete

  

Katie  alongside a Gloster Javelin F(AW).9R which was built in 1958 and saw service until 1966, the year before Katie (amongst the last of her line) was first registered.  

80 mile round trip from home, country village route, and in this weather very a pleasant trundle. Flixton had a good crowd today as the Copdock bike club also visit with around about 120 bikes, and there was also a contingent of amazingly spotless classic Honda (Owners Club), and then again a few of the 'Distinguished Gentlemen' motorcycle club on their way back from a charity run. One of the bike's there was a limited edition (just 500) CCM 600cc single street style bike. There was a flying model club too and also static model attendees too. I enjoyed a good banter with some of the museum's volunteer staff, and some other old gaffers who came to visit this extraordinary museum.   

Otherwise, classic cars spotted included a couple of early short wheelbase Land Rovers, a Morris Minor 1000, a plastic bumper MGB-GT, a Rover P6 2000, and what looked to be an early 1960's Bentley Continental coupe.  Very nice too.  I also pulled into the petrol station next to a positively huge black Ford Thunderbird, which sounded fabulous just ticking over.

On 5/17/2022 at 7:52 AM, Dobloseven said:

Lovely photos. Really need a windmill in the background though! Great to see Katie out and about. Realistically you're going to be fettling and improving her till the end of time, but she's on the road, being used which is what it's all about. Well done, give yourself a virtual pat on the back! I reckon the next project will be a custom made dog crate to fit exactly on the space behind the seats. 

On the way back, just a few miles down the road, I dropped in at Billingford Mill . . .

The mill was built in 1859-60 to replace a post mill that had succumbed to excessive winds.  The mill closed down in 1959, which is somewhat amazing in light of that being in the  Javelin's era ..and its twin turbo-jet with 13, 390lb of thrust (with reheat).

The mill is now in the capeable care of 'The Norfolk Windmill Trust' ..and friends of the windmill, who raised funds for restoration between 2017 and 21.  It's a tranquil place to visit and perhaps stop for a picnic.

Katie, behaved very well, although I was shocked when I stopped for petrol and 30 litres cost close to £60.!  Aside from that things are settling (I've done 300 miles these past 7 days) and I'm getting a few squeaks so perhaps tomorrow I'll wander around and check that bolts are pinched up.  I'll also drop the tyre pressures again, things jiggle a bit on the old Suffolk back roads that may appreciate a little more compliance.  All in all though confidence is building

Bidding you a pleasant summer's evening. 

Pete

  

 

[Dobloseven]

That's expensive petrol! E5 at our local(Leicester) Costco is 159.9 ppl. Same as the E10 at Sainsburys, Asda etc. 300 miles in 7 days is good going. Bet the previous owner took a long while to do that many miles. Enjoy! 

[Bfg]

2 hours ago, Dobloseven said:

Bet the previous owner took a long while to do that many miles.

I think there was very good reason in that   ..with all the things I've found wrong I'm sure he knew the car to be both dangerous and unreliable.  Sell it on and buyer beware. 

 

2 hours ago, Dobloseven said:

That's expensive petrol!

Indeed.. I'd not left the checkout and questioned whether they had charged me for the wrong pump.. but no  BP Express  charged £1.899 per ltr. for E5,  so just 30 ltrs (6.6 gals) today cost me 3p shy of £57. 

That's a new one on me as I'm overly familiar of keeping the price 1p below the psychological price barrier, but 00.1p below it is I think one step too far.  

BP Express are now on my black list (one to avoid on principle). 

[Dobloseven]

Does make one wonder when one sees these "delightfully patinated" classics, that "present very well", what lurks beneath all the polish!Regarding the petrol prices, BP and Shell always seem expensive. Whether because it's seen as a premium product, I don't know. We've a Sainsburys where the fuel is pretty reasonable with a Shell station directly opposite where it's much dearer and both always seem busy. 

[Bfg]

My post-war (that being ..post second world war) Sunbeam motorcycles were designed to run on 6:1 compression ratio ..because of the low octane of 'pool petrol' (mixed together grades from whatever supplies were to be had).  And we're now moving back to those days with the drop from 4-star to unleaded, from unleaded to E5, and then a drop again to E10.  A friend at our last club meeting noted that his GT6 2ltr engined Triumph Spitfire now lacks the umph for towing his trailer. He's running the car on E10.   The word around such clubs is that supermarket fuels are worse than the premium brands. 

I'd guess, for the more modern car which is used for the mindless commute to & from work, driven solo in an otherwise unladen car, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but for those engines designed to run on four or five star petrol - it can be felt.  Ironically that hasn't clicked with many owners. My friend Rich for example is just (re)building another engine which he's suggested will be up from the original (quoted) 105bhp to close to 150bhp.  It'll cost him in the region of £5-6000 with carburettor and exhaust upgrades, and then I'm sure he'll find the fuel's octane rating will necessitate he retards the ignition to prevent pinking.!   I'd presume he'll have more power on hand than his old (already tuned to 130bhp) engine but possibly not nearly as much as he'd hoped.

Pete       

[Bfg]

 

I've now done 300 miles since putting the car back on the road a week ago, and "touch wood" all is going well now the rear of the car is accord with the front !  

I've done various other jobs this past week, including pulling out the unused wires to the flasher relay (from when it was positioned in the passenger footwell), but that was only part of my connecting up the windscreen washer pump.  This is something I presume the last owner fitted to save the effort of having to push a washer pump several times. However the push button switch was iffy, the washer pump is iffy, and its electrical-earth was also iffy, so all together I ended up chasing my tail.  I got it in the end but then the rubber into which the jets screw was perished and cracked and so water squirted every-which-way but hardly at the windscreen.!!   The driver's side now works, but I'll need to change the rubber windscreen wiper blocks at some time ..and if the pump gives me problems again it'll be flung and I'll go back to a manually operated one.

I've also (re)corrected the front suspension / steering toe-in.  Now that the back is good to go the toe-in at the front could go back to standard spec.  The handling is now fine and happily undramatic. Tracking is straight.  Tyre pressures I'd likewise reset to 30psi all around (a datum I'll adjust from) ..but after my drive on Sunday and the car's transmission of poor road surfaces and transverse ridges on certain road sections, I'll next try them at 28psi.

Feeling the temperature of the hubs and brakes after a run, I noted the rear right was just a little warmer than the rear left and so I've slackened the brake adjuster off 1/4 of a turn as the handbrake was just slightly binding.  Brakes are not much to write home about but I guess that's largely because I'm used to the servo assisted of modern cars.

Having now got a car with a fraction of the shakes & rattles she had 14 months ago - I sought, to identify a reverberating harmonic, not quite but almost a rumble noise ..especially apparent on corners.  That it turned out, with the aid of a passenger to listen, was thought to be coming from the rear.  And as this noise sympathised with road speeds, rather than engine engine or driveshaft revs, it was shortlisted to be coming from the LH half-shaft & or that wheel-bearing.  Down-under Investigation found slack in the inboard UJ.  So, here we go again.

 

I did this on Saturday afternoon, just 1-3/4 hr from start to finish, including a bit of cleaning up, replacing one grease nipple and the four wheel studs (from short wire wheel ones to the longer ones used for pressed steel wheel).   Job done, and the noise has either gone altogether or is beneath annoyance levels.  Katie's very much more enjoyable to drive without it.

The diff &/or gearbox is still noisy, which resembles the old mini 850 of my youth, but I don't know how much of that is 1960's 'original' swan-song versus wear.  And/or how much that is from my having a quiet exhaust where very little is concealed. 

As things are settling, we're getting a few squeaks ..so I'll need to go around and make sure all the body mounts are pinched up, and to see what else might be making little noises

.  

^ and I've dropped Katie's  front number plate one grille bar.  Seen here at Flixton, enjoying the weather in good company with a 1956 Lockheed T33A and a DeHavilland Sea Vixen (XJ482 ; 1958-1972).  As you might gather I'm leaving the bumpers off for the time being.

Pete

 

 

[Dobloseven]

I reckon it needs white roundels on the doors, a roll bar and some straps to hold the bonnet down. Sorry, I will get my coat, honest. 

[PhilA]

I've found that here the standard being E10 at the equivalent of 92 RON that the Chieftain will run better at higher RPM with adjustment to the ignition timing and idle mix, but it's certainly a very poor carburetor fuel- it's much more suited to fuel injection.

Phil

[Bfg]

Yesterday I did, or attempted to do, a few jobs around the car. . .

^ the bonnet's LHS cone was seized in and therefore not adjustable. After cracking the overpaint off and scraping it out of the thread with a Stanley-knife blade I applied penetrating and let it to soak in ..while I attempted other jobs.  After a while, and a few intermittent attempts, I managed to sweat it off, clean it up, Copaslip the thread and refit the cone 1/8" higher.  I need to do something with the worn hinge on that side and its bonnet frame to panel attachment, but for the meantime, that another little job done without unintentional paint being chipped off  .. little tick   

The other job I particularly wanted another go at was less obliging. . .

^ Front RHS lower wishbone trunnion.  I tried before and it wouldn't come apart, so I reassembled it with a copious dousing of penetrating fluids and left it, hoping thereafter twisting and vibration from driving would help free it up a little more.  However that corner of the car squeaks within this trunnion ..so as you can see - I crawled under and battled again.  Clearly rust is washing out and I can just about turn the bolt, but those trunnion sleeves are still locked fast onto it.      No coconut for today thank you

 

While back and forth to the seized bonnet cone, I happened to note this peculiar detail . . .

  ..see green arrow

^ this is the fuel pipe from the tank, and the black rubber pipe is where its route turns up to the pump.  There were no clips on it, and the bottom of that ('2013 unleaded') rubber pipe is cracked and otherwise just one half of its end was cocked on by 1/8".   It was seeping, but at such a slow rate that the petrol evaporated as it ran over the chassis.   I was lucky, not least because I've only recently added almost £60 of fuel to the tank and.. had that pipe come off - the whole tank would have drained.  

I've swapped the pipe for a length which is twice as long and, like we do in the marine industry, I've two pipe clips on either end of it.  I'll give myself a tick for being so lucky  but then need to remove it ..for my not having spotted it beforehand, so    .. 

Pete

[Bfg]

This afternoon's task was at first to prove difficult to the point of giving in, then one of stubbornness, followed by it having been exceptionally positive and uplifting, and then this evening something changed . . .

 

Some may recall, from when I took Katie  across to Wolverhampton for her chassis swap, that I found - when driving along heavily trafficked dual-carriageways in so low an open-top and very rattly old car - the huge tyre sizes of modern vehicles and commercials to be somewhat intimidating.. And equally so their road-noise massively intrusive. 

You may also recall, from many moons ago - I bought Katie  a used Surrey-top with grp back-light ..to help curb such noise.   Indeed, to have such a roof is for me a big plus for the Triumph fours & fives.  Certainly my right shoulder will be glad to be rid of the intrusive hood frame, so that I might sit squarer in the seat.  And overall I'll be happy with the additional spaciousness on the aft deck. 

And so, today's task saw me drag said back-light out from under the table (it was there because I live in a grotty apartment and have no garage per-se) ..to see what was what. . .

My apologies for the dust, I've given the cleaning maid the day decade off.   When I bought this, the gentleman apologised for its glass being loose. He explained when he'd picked it up - the fibreglass had moved and the top edge had come out of the seal.   I've never fitted a windscreen before, but had read that many individuals had struggled but managed and so surely I could do that too.  Bit of string to lay in the rubber and then to use that to pull the rubber aside as the glass screen slips into the groove.  I say I'd read, but I cannot say 'particularly reassured' as I was very anxious of breaking the glass.    Nevertheless "he who dares " ..only crashes and burns once !

After a dusting, it was clear that the screen was out along both the top and bottom edges and the sides were only just hanging on in there. Also that black sealant goo had been used to stick the seal all across the top edge to the frame ..one presumes to seal water leaks.  I tried but the glass didn't want to slip back into its seal, and so I decided to pull it out and start again. . .

 

^ Put the string into the groove ?  It kept pulling out so I used packer-blocks of hardboard to keep it in.  I then tried to lower the glass in both from the inside and the outside ..and as the blocks were removed the string came out again.  Onto Youtube and the chap on there shows the seal fitted first onto the windscreen glass, not onto the frame.  The the string is around the outside. He loosely places the glass with seal onto the windscreen frame's and the seal seems to automatically engage with the bottom flange. Next we know he's wiggling the string out from the inside top corner and the job is done.  

Yeah., sure that was not going to happen here was it !   So next go onto the web to find a mobile windscreen fitter. I find someone here in Ipswich, and give him a call. Apparently with holidays this coming week (..which I didn't know about) and his work load, it'll be two weeks before he can come out.  Cost, well  IF it goes Okay then £75, if it turns out to be one of those ....  then it'll cost more, but if by some chance it happens to go in easily then the price can be adjusted down a bit.

Two weeks huh,  Well I had to laugh ..what might I expect when I ring someone at 5pm on a Friday evening..  same day service ! ? 

Hey ho, I didn't need it fitted now, although tbh., it would have been nice to have had it fitted for the drive to and from the Sandringham pageant on the 5th of next month. And I think having a much-wanted back-light on the car would give my ol' mojo a boost. 

Nothing to do for today then, but to idly poke around the back-light. . .

 

^ Push, shove, thumb it sideways as I push n' shove, then push the glass some more, and work around fingering the rubber edges out.   The darn thing was goi ng in !  I couldn't believe it. No string, no soap nor other lubricant, not even water, just my pushing n' shoving and a lot of thumbing.  You see there is an advantage to having a giant's hands. !

       

One the glass was in the seal's groove I used my Mum's old butter knife just to ease the rubber away from the glass as I push down on it (the glass) to help it right into the bottom of the seal's groove, which in turn dropped the bottom edge (seen as the top but only because of how the back-light was sitting) as I worked my way back n' forth one side & then the other while push down and inwards.  Second pic shows the seal came off the frame along that one long edge, I pulled it onto the glass and then finished off the transitions by shoving and thumbing the seal back onto the frame's grp flange. 

  

Amazingly, to me, I got the glass back in.  ^ The tide marks from where it was fitted beforehand showed that it wasn't yet where it was, in fact here (in the first photo) the glass needs to be raised by 1/2" into the seal. More shoving and easing the glass down and inwards. In the second photo, you'll see rag poked inbetween the rug and the backlight frame to support it a little higher in the middle (crudely replicating the curvature of the car's rear deck, by the filler cap).

   

^ Excellent the glass is in ..and unbroken !   BIG broad grin.   ..I really hadn't expected to be able to do that.  not least on my own in an hour-and-a-half.   Sure I broke a sweat and my thumbs feel like a few minutes more and they would have blistered ..BUT ITS DONE !!

I suddenly felt hungry !

Cooked my supper (it was quarter to eight after all) and sat down to watch a movie. 

All good huh !  ?

Alas not quite..  an hour and a half later, sitting untouched on the table still.. the top edge of the glass has pulled out of the seal. . .

^ barely noticeable in the piccie, but it's pulled away mostly all across the top edge (see red arrow) ..as if the glass is 1/2" too short, or the frame is distorted 1/2" too high.  Well that accounts for why there's the black sealant all across this seal ..and possibly also why I managed to get the glass in by finger power alone.

I don't know if the car's rear-deck shape would tend to squeeze these faces together, but somehow I doubt it. Possibly the fibreglass flange has been trimmed back ? because getting the glass in at all was a bear.  Either way I'm naturally very disappointed. 

Ups and downs of classic cars huh !

Bidding you a good evening and a pleasant weekend

Pete.

 

 

[Bfg]

I'm back to start again, with the glass loose top and bottom in its frame after several failed attempts sit it on the car. In the first instance, I wanted to go to a classic car auto-jumble and show on Sunday, and so didn't want to take the hood off.  I just wanted to tilt the hood frame forward to fit and measure the backlight to windscreen dimension.  That in turn would indicate how much I could squeeze the fibreglass frame to tighten the glass by 1/4".  

   

^ I hoped the backlight would fit around it once the rear deck trim, with its lift-a-dots and webbing straps on it, was removed. But then, quite typically - two of the rivet nuts turned and had nuts under those so I could get a socket in from the underside. Bottom line being that the rear trim had to come out too.

While at it I felt around for a petrol-tank-breather, as there's often the smell of the fuel around the back of the car and in the boot. I couldn't find one, just a vented cap.

The backlight did partly fit over the hood frame (this being the frame off a TR6 with its side rubbers) but the backlight wouldn't go down to sit on the deck ..so off with the hood frame.

Even with that out of the way, the backlight wouldn't go down. It was if the studs fibreglassed to the underside of the frame were 1/2" too short.  I giggled and poked, pushed and thumped, but alas no, the darn thing was not going to play nicely.  Certainly it seems that the surrey top and soft-top hoods are not just a five or ten minute job to swap. 

Indeed, by the time I realised what was going wrong - I'd been at this for two hours.  I must be on the wrong diet because my brain has been quite sluggish ..these past twenty plus years.  

  

^ comparing the bonded on stud with the screw that held the hood's rear trim plate on and they're the same size, indeed the same 1/4" UNF thread.   Because two of those trim retaining screws went all the way through the (stripped out) rivet-nuts - it simply hadn't occurred to me that the rest wouldn't.   Duhh !   

 

  

^The rivet-nuts looked like this, and it turns out they are made in aluminium.   ^^ And they now look like this !   That should give enough room for the backlight's studs to drop through.  First though.. to paint the metal, and while that is drying, to have a late lunch and to refit again the, now pulled out again, glass back into its frame. 

^ Btw, I held the rim of the riv-nut with the needle nose vice-grips and then using a countersink drill-bit I cut into that aluminium rim until it came broke loose.

Talking of backs, yes it's aching from lifting while reaching over the car.  It's a pain getting old. !

Hopefully a little more later.

 

Later ..Retry fitting the backlight . . .

After fitting the glass back into the frame along its bottom edge, using a telescopic awning pole to hold the front corners apart, and a bit of wiggling (the frame not me !) things looked promising.  

^ masking tape held the body seal in place as I shuffled things around to get it to sit down, and while I fitted washers and nuts onto the studs, under the deck.  The two studs half way along the sides missed the metal at the side, so I cut some aluminium angle to use as clamps. That worked well on one side but the other side's stud is too short ..at least until things settle. 

I then worked the top of the glass into the seal, again by finger power and I finally got it to just lipped in all the way across. The tape on the glass below that top seal is half inch away from the glass edge, so I really would like a little higher. or indeed the backlight frame a little further back.  To that end I thought I'd fit the fabric Surrey-top's spidery frame. . .

   

^ Its beginning to look like a roof !   ..but there's a few details I yet need to investigate (research) how it should / might work.  A bit of rubber fuel hose in the hole is temporary, just to judge the metal frame's length.   The rear legs to this spidery frame have what look to be new threads welded into the end of the tubes. Horridly coarse threads and hacksaw cut ends which yet needed to be chamfered, and I suspect their length is now too short.   The threads match the brass screw adjusters Roger very kindly let me have, so they are correct ..just horrid to push over a rubber seal and into fibreglass holes in the backlight.

   

The fabric Surrey top is presumable from a TR4 as it intends for its front edge battens to be pushed back under the windscreen's cap rail. However Katie had a Tr6 hood and windscreen cap rail.  The question I'm now faced with is whether to change the cap rail or the fabric Surrey top. ?    If anyone has a spare TR4 cap rail, or a TR6 adapted fabric Surrey top then I'd be most interested - thanks, even if it / they are only in such condition as to only make do.  ie., allow me weather protection until I get something better sorted. 

 

^ Passenger side door glass fitted against the door / weather seal on the backlight very well.  Not so on the driver's side. The glass sticks out by half an inch or so.  I'll have to investigate that ..as I'm keen to block other vehicle's tyre noise from coming in so readily.  

Regarding the glass in the backlight, well it's in ..and to be honest I think if water sealant (perhaps clear silicon ?) is applied then it'll probably work without dropping out. There's only a couple mm overlap of the seal onto the glass in the middle, but there's double that in the top outside corners, and then the glass is tight into the bottom corner, along the sides and and all around the back. The chromed plastic wedge strip is now fitted but it's not sitting nicely. Perhaps a new one might be a better fit and actually do something to better secure the glass.  The plan is to work the glass when everything is hot from the sun, to see how things settle further (..sun tomorrow please), and to rework the fabric's spidery frame to be a tight fit, which will push the grp frame backwards. 

^ I wonder if.. the top seal has been bonded on all the way across the top and most of the way down the B-post sides. But if that was hard pushed right the way forward when it was gooed, then to release it may enable the glazing seal to come back two or three mm. ?  

 

All things considered though - I'm really very pleased that the glass went in (..again) and the backlight is now fitted onto the car, albeit loosely.  That is A BIGGIE  for me ..in terms of the TR I sought to own and drive. 

Step by step, we're getting there (..i think ? ) 

Pete

 

p.s.  yes the backlight is painted primrose yellow. Hey what can I say but that ..I'm adding flower power  !

[Bfg]

15 minutes ago, Bfg said:

Passenger side door glass fitted against the door / weather seal on the backlight very well.  Not so on the driver's side. The glass sticks out by half-an-inch or so.  I'll have to investigate that ..as I'm keen to block other vehicle's tyre noise from coming in so readily.

Sunday ;  one of the issues discovered is that I need to find some sort of adjustment in the backlight's position . . .

  

^ the passenger side door glass is a very good fit against the backlight's door seal, whereas the driver's side leaves something to be desired. Just part of this is that the backlight is further back on the driver's side. This is evident insomuch as the amount of rear deck showing at the B-post, forward of the bottom front corner of the backlight, is 1/16" on the passengers side and 5/16" on the drivers (seen above, just the other side of the chrome strip from the blue masking tape).  And with bonded-in studs under the fibreglass frame there's no adjustment. The same would apply with captive nuts.

Upon investigation (top off again) I found . . .

   

^ ..the car's rear deck bolt holes are not symmetrical. 16-5/8" on the passenger side and 16-15/16" on the drivers side.  The restoration / repairs to this rear deck must have been done by eye rather than with a measure.  Most likely the restorer didn't appreciate these to be critical dimensions.  But that 5/16" difference possibly also accounts for the soft-top's hood & frame being noticeably tighter on this side.  Well.., I cannot redrill the hole through that rear deck flange 5/16" further forward ..as that is in inside the car.  

So that's what I've done !

I elongated forward the next hole in, as much as I could (still allowing for a nut & plain washer to just about fit under the rear deck), and I pulled the backlight forward on this side, so that corner stud is now inside the car. I had hoped to get a bracket and nut on that, the same as I've done on each side, but the stud isn't long enough (and I don't want to cut the down-turned flange shorter).

 

^ with the driver's side of the backlight pushed forward, whereby that stud is hard against the inside the flange, the front corner now sits 1/8" too far forward. Still this is a better situation for the door glass (which seals up the A-post).  However the angles are clearly out too.   To correct the side angle the front corner of the backlight would have to lift by 3/4" ..which simply isn't practical.  And even if I did that.. the door glass is still leaning out too far.  

An interesting conundrum ..together with a whole lot of admiration for the dedicated restorer who has the foresight to get this sort of detail right.. even as they weld together a rusty body tub.

Pete

[Bfg]

Sunday (..instead of me going to an auto-jumble and classic car show ) . .

^ To get the back top corner of the door glass to fit would surely necessitate it to twist ? ..as it presently sits well against the A-post.  I'm not sure how much of a compromise can be achieved.

Stuart, on the TR forum has said he uses a lip (or flap) door seal rather than the bulb type that Katie has.  And the lip seal allows much easier compression, so that the top of the glass isn't held out.  It sounds like the way to move forward, because if the top front corner of the door glass can go in further.. then so can its rear top corner.

Changing things one step at a time gives me a better chance of getting the foundations straight.  Presently the top end of the bulb seal was neatly closed-off / filled with goo that is less flexible, and that prevent the top corner of the glass going in further. . . 

   

Prompted by your suggestion to use a lip seal ..and my bulb seal having a blob of goo in it .. I've just dug that out and refitted the door seal ..and yes the top corner of the glass does now go in a further 1/4". That in turn means the back of the top corner of the door glass is now also sitting closer . . .

  

^ I've removed the fabric Surrey-top's side-tensioning hook, for the time being, as I feared the glass striking it and breaking.  And I've pulled the bottom corner of the backlight out as far as it can go (with its bottom edge seal now hard against the chrome rear-wing beading).  Now the backlight's door seal is in contact with the bottom rear edge of the door glass for 2-1/2" and the top rear edge corner of the glass is 5/16" - 3/8" away ..tantalisingly close to hope it's within range of door runner bracket adjustment.

All very positive progress.  Cheers Stuart, your advice and prompting has been a great help in moving this forward ..in (you know what I mean  )

Pete   

 

 

[Bfg]

1 hour ago, Bfg said:

Now the backlight's door seal is in contact with the bottom rear edge of the door glass for 2-1/2" and the top rear edge corner of the glass is 5/16" - 3/8" away ..tantalisingly close to hope it's within range of door runner bracket adjustment.

  I spent quite some time yesterday, adjusting the drivers door glass (packers under the runners, and even pulling the rear runner out to very slightly bend it in at the top) to achieve a better fit. The tapered gap between the rear edge of the door glass and backlight's seal became closely aligned, albeit only just touching for most of its length and indeed instead of it being 5/16" - 3/8" away at the top back corner, I got it down to 1/16" gap.   Great progress and possibly just enough, if the A-post door seals are now changed for the more easily compressed lip-type seals.  

 

   

^ these are the brackets I made to hold the front corner of the backlight down.  As the single bottom (formerly hood-frame) bolt allows the the bracket to tilt, then fore and aft adjustment is achieved.  They work well. 

However..,  when used, and the front bottom corners of the backlight is pulled down - I lost the glass to seal contact "only just touching for most of its length'  ..now it's only just not touching  

..but at least it being close to parallel (gap) - it ought not be too drafty. Replacing the A-post door-seal to a lip type ought to help just a tad, but I suspect when driving the airflow around the sides / suction on the glass will pull it out.  Hey ho.., it is massively better than from whence we came ..and also better than the rag-top hood.

Ups and downs of classic cars, along with the ups n' downs of being a freak. . .

      

^ Big head ! 

With my having the seat so far back, the lower height and different high-point shape (compared to the the soft-top hood-frame) of the backlight and its Surrey-top frame, means my head pokes out.  It may be only slightly but the position of this tubular metal frame is just there against the side of my head ..and that's with the surrey top frame adjusted high.  for reference, the straight edge batten is 1-1/4" (32mm) high, and as you can see the apex of the tubular from is close to double that.  

I've only driven a Surrey-top TR4 once before, and that was Mikes (TR East Saxon's group) excellent 4A,  also with Mx-5 seats, but that evening he didn't have the top on ..so no tubular frame.  And with his car's seat travel restricted and very much further forward, even the backlight in the back of my scalp wasn't a known issue. 

This is a great disappointment. 

 

 

[Snake Charmer]

I would guess the sealant used around the upper edge of your Surrey top rubber seal is Sikaflex or similar. Excellent sealant until you need to remove it!

Is the rear window glass or Perspex? If Perspex,  perhaps it has been trimmed too small.

[Bfg]

It's glass in the backlight, but the flanges of the glassfibre frame may have been cut a little too narrow.  That frame has vinyl on the inside and that wraps over the flange so I guess they were not cut too narrow by the prior owner. 

Following prompts by Stuart on the TR Forum, I suspected the issue with the side glass fitting against the the seal may be with the fibreglass moulding . . .

                                             

^ looking from the front ;  Driver's side, comparing the angle (tumble-home) of the backlight's seal versus the windscreen.  And the same comparison on the passenger side where the back edge of the door glass sits well on its seal.  These photos correspond to how the front edge of each door glass fits up the A-post, with the passengers being almost parallel but the driver's now needing to be tilted all the way in at the top.   I fear that despite best efforts.. I may be fighting a loosing battle where the moulding itself is not symmetrical.  Seeing this I reckon I've done pretty well to get the driver's door glass anywhere near.

Further discussions has now led me to suspect that rather than the backlight moulding being 1/2" out, it may well be that the top corner of the driver's side B-post is perhaps that amount too far out  ..not that you'd know it by the shoulder room mind you ! (43" inside dimension between the top corner of B-post trim pads.). 

It comes as no surprise, what with welded repairs and sill replacements, and possibly accidents, over the past 55 years, but correcting that will have to be a task for another day. It'll be a lot of work for the sake of closing the door-glass to backlight's seal tighter.  

Pete

[mitsisigma01]

Can't you do away with the backlight and have a full floptop instead 🤷🏻‍♂️

[catsinthewelder]

That must all be rather annoying. 

At least you have the fibreglass skills to get yourself out of this problem by making the Surrey top slightly taller to clear yourself and making adjustments so it fits the screen and the car properly.  I can't think of anyone else who could.

Look on the bright side, you didn't paint it before fitting.

[Bfg]

I do did have a soft-top on the car, but I wanted the wrap around back window, to lessen the intrusive tyre noise of other road users.  While still offering open top motoring it also stops the backdraft and so is all the more comfortable. 

The soft-top on these cars is primative and in many respects retrograde from early cars whose covers and frames lifted off completely for storage, but were specifically designed for compact stowage. ..even to the point of having space behind for small child, dog, camera &/or shopping bags.  In comparison the TR6 hood frame is again intrusive. . .

The marketing men saw other / newer designs of bigger wider cars that had a quicker n' easier to raise / lower hood and better door glass draught-proofing. They said to the management  "this is what the customer wants. If you do this then we'll sell more cars".  The designers said " but there is no shoulder room for such a folding frame and its seals"  "..and you'll loose the space behind the seats".   Marketing men are closer to the money and so always get their way..  and so 5" ( ! ) shoulder width and even more than that of rear space depth was sacrificed to the god of convenience. 

So then the next generation of customers bought hot-hatchbacks instead of soft top cars anyway. They had space behind the seats for their friends ..and larger speakers.!

The photo shows the hood frame (obviously without its cover) touching the tapered seat back. With either these seats or the originals - that joint of the folding hood frame pokes into my shoulder.  Take away the hood frame, and fit a Surrey top and the shoulder width and depth of space behind the seat is once again restored.

Pete

[Mally]

Would it be possible to fit an extra cross bar just forward of the front of your head and curved a little higher?

If so, the fall from that may just clear.

[Bfg]

22 hours ago, catsinthewelder said:

That must all be rather annoying. 

At least you have the fibreglass skills to get yourself out of this problem by making the Surrey top slightly taller to clear yourself and making adjustments so it fits the screen and the car properly.  I can't think of anyone else who could.

Look on the bright side, you didn't paint it before fitting.

yes rather annoying, but my own fault for doing as I was told as a child. I ate my vegetables and grew as a beanstalk.  Only later did I become so much the fuller in figure !

The backlight I'm hoping to live with.  I have yet to try it on the road, which aside from anxieties that the glass may fall out, I'll try today.

That then apparently leaves me with two options ..  the first is to remake the surrey top's hood frame so its tubular bow is not banging against my head (ie., to run them down the door glass line, as a soft top frame does, and to also add a rear bow to lift it up at the back.   This, I think, will look ugly because the backlight is lower than the soft-top's rear hood frame, and its window slopes further forward, and so extra headroom that far back would necessitate a sudden step down at the back. 

or ..

To use a hard -surrey-top-panel which is more bulbous / rounder and has no hood-frame tubes inside.  A further advantage is that the back of it overlaps the top of the backlight, whereas the fabric Surrey-top goes to its front edge.  That overlap means there's another 3" in which to drop the shape of the roof smoothly down at the back.  It's not a lot but every little bit helps. 

Conversely, the problem with the standard hard-top-panel is that its size is too big to stow and carry in, or on, the car.  It is also quite heavy and usually left behind in the garage, and the fabric Surrey top used for weather protection through the summer months.  As the cars are nowadays rarely used in the winter, the hard top panel rarely gets used.  

And so, I'm presently working through in my mind - how best to make that hard-top in two or three (t-bar) parts, which would be (individually) easier to stow on the car.  This is something I'd envisaged long ago, even before I bought the car, with the intent of fitting a boot-rack specifically for the hard panel(s) to be carried on.

The standard hard top panel, has a pleasing outside shape, but the rest of it (inside structure, flanges, fixing, seals) will have to be redesigned.  So I'm thinking of starting by taking a flash mould (off an old steel one, which I had already anticipated needing and so acquired last year) and to make an outer skin panel, onto which I graft grp simple flanges for weather seals. 

That's a lot of work, when I had hoped to be driving the car. but I see little choice.  Accept the shortcomings of a rag-top and its bulky frame, buy a rag-top hood and frame off an early car, or to make a hard-Surrey-top-panel in two or three parts.    I think it'll be a compromise between the first and last, ie., I'll use the existing rag top until I get the hard-top-panels developed and made.

Pete

The underside structure of this original steel have crumbled away, as have some of the edge flanges, and there's an ugly welded repair and big dent on the other side so it's not as good as it first appears, but it's a darn good starting point ..and as importantly..  my big fat head fits under it !  

 

 

[Bfg]

Update..

I went out in Katie yesterday, just locally around town.. going to Machine-Mart, to the grocery store, to a windscreen place, and to a couple of tyre centres (as the front right has a slow puncture or leaky valve), I came back along the A14, just between two junctions, at 70mph and all was fine.    

This is the first time I've driven the car with the backlight on, and the back window glass didn't fall out !   I'm still worried about it but am a little happier after I'd left the car with the old tin roof in place for it to get hot in the sun. The door glass windows were up - which meant the car's interior and rear window, together with that rubber seal also got pretty warm. and then with the rubber seal being a little more supple I'd thumped and pushed the back glass down to seat it as best I might.  Although the streets around Ipswich town centre and its 19th century suburbia are not exactly silky smooth, and these little Triumph sports are a firm ride, the shaking and twisting didn't pop the glass out.  That was reassuring.!

Any sports car is very low to get in & out of ..for an old gaffer, and particularly so for someone of my big n' tall stature with an iffy back, but I was really very pleased to be able to use the car 'conveniently' around town.  Of course, with Katie  not having the hood up, nor a Surrey top in place.. there was no headroom restriction (ducking into a door frame opening) when getting in n' out.  Shoulder space (for me with the seat so far back) without the folding hood frame was of course 2+" more.  It's still a very narrow car for me, but then that's just part n' parcel with most British sports cars.  

My monk's bald patch on top corresponds with the furflex seal to protects one's scalp from an edge. But even with my almost rear-seat driving position.. although I knew the backlight was there ..just an inch or so behind my head, it was not a problem.  

Very important to me.. ambient mechanical, town noise, and tyre / road noise from other vehicles, I was very happy with.  Driving around with the side windows up and with a wrap-around rear window was now perfectly acceptable in town, and likewise along the dual-carriageway alongside lorries and modern large-tyred cars, even after a downpour when the roads were very wet. So although tyre / road spray noise was apparent, it was not at all intrusive.  

Wind in the hair was pleasant and not so 'scrubbing', while wind around the back of the neck and equally to my lumber regions was significantly better than when I was driving around with the soft top down.  Side and rear three-quarter visibility with the backlight in place is excellent, as there's just the slim B-posts ..which were pretty much subliminal.

All in all then I'm really pleased with driving the TR with its backlight in place.  It is imho as worthwhile as the overdrive on the gearbox is.  The car is very usable and still fun without either, but one &/or both make these cars all the more convenient and comfortable to use.  It's definitely a keeper ! 

Pete   

p.s. to be expected.. even light rain, without a Surrey top in place does come in ..at town speeds  And despite its low angle.. the rain droplets get onto inside the rear glass.    

[Bfg]

The backlight is Okay to live with, having now tried it on the road.  It being an inch higher would have helped a lot (..in getting it away from the top of my head) but for the time being it is what it is ..and the studs are too short to fit some sort of packer under it. 

Regarding the gap (..rain scoop !) inbetween that and the windscreen,  and my head being in conflict with the fabric-Surrey-top's frame,  I've now considered the options, and I've decided to try and make a lightweight grp hard-top lid.  And I'll use the car without weather protection for the time being, or else refit its existing rag-top.. until I get the new hard-top-lid made. 

With HUGE THANKs to Roger-H  (via the TR Register and its forum), I have an old steel hard-top-lid to work from.  It's been hand painted, is dented, has rust holes through it ..and fraying gutter flanges. It's been poorly welded / brazed (?) with a weird brittle aluminium-like filler, and the lid's inside structure and flanges are half intact  ie., the other half have rotted away ! ..so it's perfect for my needs

^ As Roger assured me.. at first glance - it looks better than it is.  Still, these original hard-top-lids have a pleasing line, and is (relatively) spacious inside. The rest of it (inside structure, flanges, fixtures and fixings, seals, etc) will for my purposes be redesigned anyway. 

Starting off then. . .

  

^ This lid is a great starting point, for me to take a flash mould, and to make a new outer-skin panel in lightweight grp, onto which I'll graft simple grp flanges for the weather seals. 

  

^ someone had real issues with paint blisters.  The thick hand-painted black that tried to cover those was really hard to cut back, but in time I won over. 

  

^ the 'welded repair'  (rear RHS corner) ..which split open again as soon as I tapped it with the dressing hammer.   ^^ Oh well, there's always bondo !  glass reinforced filler in this case.

^ second coat, and already a fairer shape.

Wishing you great holiday celebrations. 

Pete