Tony P

Does that imply that an amateur-built Seven could be subject to the same test as a factory-built model of (nominally) the same model type or with the same broad model name, regardless of the detailed spec? Or have I misunderstood?

Ah - I was never sure what a 'well nut' is. They typically have larger OD than a regular rivnut, so they can help when replacing a fixing in a hole that has already been damaged or enlarged by the escape of the previous occupant, and they are more tolerant of a slightly irregular hole. As elie says, you don't need any special tooling (Ok - you *can* fit a rivnut without special tooling, but it's not ideal), They can rip out again with (hopefully) a bit less further damage to the skin. Flange is typically thicker than a metal rivnut, but you can work around that. If a metal setscrew does become seized in the thread, you can hack the rubber away and then have a much slimmer metal insert to withdraw through the screw hole in the wing.

I'd go with elie on this - rubber nuts (with a metal thread inside; sometimes called 'rawlnuts' - a brand name); they also help to keep the different metals separated. Useful to have a few of these in the toolkit too, for repairs 'in the field'.

I found it much easier to get a firm pedal - with reduced travel - using the larger-bore (AP) cylinder. (The service kit included an exploded diagram of the innards, which I though was something 'nice to have' as well.)

What an extraordinary outburst in response to a harmless posting that an old thread was being revived. I can be fairly sure that SM25T’s comment was a ‘thumbs up’ rather than a ‘thumbs down’. We like to see old topics resurface before the old wisdom disappears. Having recently been helping in the rebuild of car with just such a hybrid arrangement of newer, non-trunnion suspension on an older-style chassis (with essentially a ‘live-axle’ car front end), I was prepared to sort out drawings, pictures, notes and a parts list on how it might be tackled. Strangely though, I now find myself too busy to do it… With language like that, I imagine that wish to be banned could be fulfilled quite easily.

Page (iii) is amusing - and, having originally built my Seven a long, long time ago, covers an aspect of build-and-registration that would never have occured to me...

Bear in mind that if you place it in the triangle of the screen stanchion (or in that area if you don't have a screen) that you can't reach it if you have a harness done up (a likely frustration if forgetting it's 'off' when 'setting off' !)

re. your Edit: yes, that's what I was unclear on...

Indeed, but I should qualify my "simpler" remark: of course the standard hood won't fit...

Just out of general interest: Is the bar that Grubbster refers to essentially GJT’s “No.3”, or are we thinking of different iterations of the R500? GJT's No.5 is very similar to (or the same as) the old Vauxhall race car bar - though that had a bolt-in strut running forward into the cockpit (and was used in conjunction with an internal cockpit brace). That bar, in turn, appeared to be inspired by the bespoke bars used on the Alex Hawkridge cars that dominated (and some would argue destroyed) the previous Class A racing, prior to the launch of the VX and then K cars. Although, on Hawkridge’s and (Barry) Lee’s cars, I recall the strut extending right down into the footwell, rather than the cockpit side, and not being removeable. While we are in the typically male mode of making lists… might I add a “2b”? The so-called FIA+2, same thing, single-diagonal, but two inches taller. Arch-made (at least, mine was) but seems to be little-known these days, though perhaps simpler than lowering the floors!

Well - ok, thanks Ian; if you’ve looked back in that detail, then fair enough. I was just recalling how it was described to me at the time, when I was helping to write general guidelines for members embarking on track days. I remember discussing things generally with that particular TDO (and his personal feelings on that particular matter). (Just to be clear, this was long before my time as LF editor, I was not on the MT than and was in no way involved in that decision.) Although I have a particular view on this subject, rather like you I don't really have a personal stake in it, other than the smooth and harmonious running of the Club! I am, though, surprised to hear of that TDO's current position.

This won’t help to move the debate forward in any significant way, but for sake of accuracy, the ‘rule’ for roll-over bars on Club days was first instituted at a time when our events were organised on our behalf by an established Track Day Organiser - and at their behest - rather than as a result of an arbitrary decision by the MT of the time, or from any direct follow-on from speed events requirements. (As far as I’m aware, that TDO still has misgivings about the then ‘standard’ bar; though what they think of the later iterations, I don’t know (I never used anything other than the so-called ‘FIA’ bar or ‘FIA+2’ bar on their events - or any others).

I think the ball joint at the bottom of the upright made its debut with the introduction of the (16v) Vauxhall-powered cars (ie '91), but I'm sure, as Adam says, the two styles then overlapped (particularly in the case of live-axle and Classic cars). (Intro of de Dion pre-dates the 'non-trunnion' development - and rear disc brakes too - by quite a way.)

I think there was a sheet aluminium boot floor option before the honeycomb board, which made it a bit easier to seal the boot from the tank area. When the honeycomb floor was made available (along with the kit for the tank), the usual procedure seemed to be to keep the plain ali panel for the front part - or the plywood piece if you weren't racing, only lightly fixed down (if at all) - in order to have something more 'deformable' if you got smacked from behind, a bit of space before the honeycomb punched into the bulkhead, but still reduce the chances of the tank being crushed and split. I think that was the theory at least...

deleted

I have the weights noted somewhere, but I can't recall if they're more or less than the weight of the ten-pound-notes needed to buy them. :-)

Actually, I was concerned that Matt might have thought I was having a snipe at him and his opening comment...nothing else!

Matt - I hope that didn't sound like I was "having a go" - not my intention; just hoped to add my tuppence-worth to the somewhat flakey history of powdercoating...!

Matt said: >> ...before Arch improved their surface blasting process... << To be fair to Arch: from what I remember, the impression at the time was that that situation was not so much to with what Arch were equipped or prepared to do, but what they were asked to do (or not do), and paid to do by their customers... When, after 17 or so years of all-weathers use, when my late-'91 spec car was stripped for refurb, the powdercoating was in remarkably good nick - even in the 'grot traps' (it was the rear 'basket' that had suffered the most, but even then nothing rusted through). There seemed to be an intervening period after that when a number of owners were disgruntled with the durability of the coating, but I don't think I would lay that problem at Arch's door. :-)

I hadn't heard that Valvemaster was a thing of the past... When these additives first came into common usage, the general wisdom seemed to be that most of them did a decent job, but as they were all based on slightly different chemistry one should pick one and stick to it. Does anyone know if, for example, Miller's has the same basis as the Castrol? Interesting thoughts, Andy.

Ah, ok... on reflection 48mm does sound a bit much, even for a bottom bracket.

The several racks I've used over time needed some adjustment from new to get just right. The ‘adjuster’ on the rack alters how tightly the rack and pinion mesh; a small adjustment there will be quite noticeable at the steering wheel. I found that ’in extremis’ if too slack it’s possible for the track rod to appear to wiggle fore or aft before having any lateral movement, and this can manifest itself as a few degrees of ’nothing happening’ when you begin to turn the wheel. Did your helper check whether there was any steering movement at all during that ‘slack’ area? (There will always be a tiny amount of slack, if only in the tyre sidewalls, but assume you talking about a lot more than this.) From memory (and if it hasn’t changed recently) that large nut on the rack is around 48mm; I seem to remember that a large adjustable spanner is hard to gain access with - I found that a (very) old fashioned Campagnolo bottom-bracket spanner was just the job (you can also get stubby ones in those sizes quite cheaply). Don’t remember the hex size for the grub screw, but if it isn’t metric it’s possibly the common-on-a-Seven 7/32”… If it [i[is[/i] just a matter of adjustment I'm sure Redline will be able to talk you through it more effectively than I though.

Pleased to hear you sorted this and got home safely. re: 'twist-the-handle' ratchets... I have the Facom version (I think they call it ‘Rotator’ or some such - now available with another brand name - I think F sourced it elsewhere); it's somewhat better than the ‘gimmick’ status that some imagine. I found it useful for a few awkward-to-access Seven tasks. Plus points for the Facom type: smooth ratchet; handle is very fat, so you can apply a reasonable effort to the twist action, but obviously not as much a long ratchet or breaker bar; twisting the handle back again is not just a 'recovery' action - for whichever direction you’re set in, twisting the handle both ways continues to turn the head the same way so it’s really fast once the fastener is loosened a bit which is great when you’re working in an awkward position; works reasonably well as a regular ratchet too; sockets lock on. Minus points: it’s not very long so not perfect for all situations and not really for breaking free really tight fasteners (but better than I expected - the fat handle helps because the effort is applied a little way from the centreline of the mechanism). The head is fairly bulky (compared to, say, the very compact Facom ‘palm control’ ratchets - but not much more so than a Snap-on style pear-shaped head). I’m not best placed to comment on v.f.m… (I had a bunch of stuff in part-payment for a job for a tool merchant). In some situations the longer, cheaper type with a ’T’ handle at the end may work better, but their quality is usually pretty poor, and I don’t know how much more effort you can apply with them. I tried on once and found it rather clumsy. If you’re not in a hurry to buy, you can borrow mine to experiment with.