• Ping Dave Plowman

    From Davey@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 19 11:20:32 2021
    Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left on
    the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was out of
    the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't follow
    their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.
    --
    Davey.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Davey on Sat Jun 19 16:18:13 2021
    In article <20210619112032.5b29df7d@david-NL40-50CU>,
    Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left on
    the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was out of
    the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't follow
    their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.

    I saw that too - one of the papers?

    It applies solely to one version, the Series 1 V8S. It is pretty well the
    same as other V8s, but came with a higher level of equipment as standard, including I think air-con.

    I'd say the rarest of all in road going condition - MOT and tax - is
    likely the diesel.

    Not sure of total numbers with MOT and tax, but somewhere over 500. With
    lots more on SORN.

    --
    *Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Davey@21:1/5 to dave@davenoise.co.uk on Sat Jun 19 17:58:14 2021
    On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:18:13 +0100
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    In article <20210619112032.5b29df7d@david-NL40-50CU>,
    Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left
    on the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was
    out of the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't
    follow their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.

    I saw that too - one of the papers?

    It applies solely to one version, the Series 1 V8S. It is pretty well
    the same as other V8s, but came with a higher level of equipment as
    standard, including I think air-con.

    I'd say the rarest of all in road going condition - MOT and tax - is
    likely the diesel.

    Not sure of total numbers with MOT and tax, but somewhere over 500.
    With lots more on SORN.


    Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
    left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
    the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.
    --
    Davey.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RJH@21:1/5 to Davey on Sat Jun 19 19:42:28 2021
    On 19 Jun 2021 at 17:58:14 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:18:13 +0100
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    In article <20210619112032.5b29df7d@david-NL40-50CU>,
    Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left
    on the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was
    out of the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't
    follow their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.

    I saw that too - one of the papers?

    It applies solely to one version, the Series 1 V8S. It is pretty well
    the same as other V8s, but came with a higher level of equipment as
    standard, including I think air-con.

    I'd say the rarest of all in road going condition - MOT and tax - is
    likely the diesel.

    Not sure of total numbers with MOT and tax, but somewhere over 500.
    With lots more on SORN.


    Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
    left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
    the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.

    Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started rusting within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).

    --
    Cheers, Rob

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 20 09:55:38 2021
    On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 19:42:28 +0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 19 Jun 2021 at 17:58:14 BST, "Davey" <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:18:13 +0100
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    In article <20210619112032.5b29df7d@david-NL40-50CU>,
    Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    Dave, I saw yesterday, a note that there are only ten V8 SD1s left
    on the roads. What happened to them? Did they rot, or what? I was
    out of the country for most of the '80s, 90s and '00s, so I didn't
    follow their story. I do know that any SD1s are very rare to see.

    I saw that too - one of the papers?

    It applies solely to one version, the Series 1 V8S. It is pretty well
    the same as other V8s, but came with a higher level of equipment as
    standard, including I think air-con.

    I'd say the rarest of all in road going condition - MOT and tax - is
    likely the diesel.

    Not sure of total numbers with MOT and tax, but somewhere over 500.
    With lots more on SORN.


    Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
    left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
    the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.

    Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started rusting >within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).

    Yup, rot. Shame. An otherwise excellent car.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to RJH on Sun Jun 20 11:57:07 2021
    In article <salhb4$opf$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
    RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
    Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
    left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
    the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.

    Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started rusting within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).

    Yes. At the onset they used a new 'state of the art' paint process. Which
    was anything but. There were also problems with bodies in the white being stored outside and getting rusty before painting.

    BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
    scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go the
    way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style of
    labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.

    --
    *Eschew obfuscation *

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Davey on Sun Jun 20 11:49:58 2021
    In article <20210619175814.103feb18@david-NL40-50CU>,
    Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few SD1s
    left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new plant for
    the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.

    They survive in similar numbers as a percentage of sales to other similar
    cars of that period. Like large Fords, Vauxhalls, etc.

    Of course many have been robbed of the V8 engine to fit to other vehicles, which might have meant the early demise of some.

    --
    *It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Davey@21:1/5 to dave@davenoise.co.uk on Sun Jun 20 14:00:46 2021
    On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:57:07 +0100
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    In article <salhb4$opf$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
    RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
    Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few
    SD1s left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new
    plant for the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.

    Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started
    rusting within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).

    Yes. At the onset they used a new 'state of the art' paint process.
    Which was anything but. There were also problems with bodies in the
    white being stored outside and getting rusty before painting.

    BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
    scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go
    the way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style
    of labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.


    Thanks. I was involved in commissioning the paint ovens in the plant,
    but not the spraybooths or the paint system. The first item to be baked
    in the Reflow oven was my Daimler SP250 exhaust manifold. Storing bodies outside is an absolute no-no, for sure, especially in England!
    Working at Solihull, you had to constantly be watching out for Land
    Rovers being driven around at breakneck speed, those drivers waited for
    no man.
    We did take the SP250 around the Rover test track one quiet
    Sunday afternoon...CCTV was still not the norm for factory premises.

    Times gone by.
    --
    Davey.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Davey on Sun Jun 20 15:52:41 2021
    In article <20210620140046.30d8c3d4@david-NL40-50CU>,
    Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    Thanks. I was involved in commissioning the paint ovens in the plant,
    but not the spraybooths or the paint system.

    I remember reading somewhere they'd used the wrong polarity. The paint was meant to be attracted to the steel by some sort of electrostatic force,
    and that wasn't corrected for some time. I've often wondered if BL fell
    out with the equipment maker since support seemed so lacking.

    Late P6 Rovers used the new paint process and it was equally as bad on
    them.

    --
    *That's it! Im calling grandma!

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 20 17:38:16 2021
    On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 14:00:46 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
    wrote:

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:57:07 +0100
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    In article <salhb4$opf$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
    RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
    Ah, ok. But still, what was the main cause of there being so few
    SD1s left? I worked for one of the contractors who built the new
    plant for the assembly of the SD1, so I have an interest.

    Rot wouldn't surprise me. A friend's dad had a 2600 which started
    rusting within a year (fuel filler cap and arches IIRC).

    Yes. At the onset they used a new 'state of the art' paint process.
    Which was anything but. There were also problems with bodies in the
    white being stored outside and getting rusty before painting.

    BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
    scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go
    the way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style
    of labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.


    Thanks. I was involved in commissioning the paint ovens in the plant,
    but not the spraybooths or the paint system. The first item to be baked
    in the Reflow oven was my Daimler SP250 exhaust manifold. Storing bodies >outside is an absolute no-no, for sure, especially in England!

    Not just England. We had the exact same problem in the late 70s with
    brand new Lancias. They had slug trails of rust on the bare metal
    before they were painted and it was our job to re-do the paint prior
    to customers taking delivery. There's no excuse for painting over bare
    metal that's already got traces of rust on it. I would imagine things
    are a hell of a lot better nowadays, though.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adrian Caspersz@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 21 09:48:06 2021
    On 20/06/2021 11:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

    BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
    scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go the
    way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style of
    labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.


    Found this a good read.

    https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/sd1/


    --
    Adrian C

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Adrian Caspersz on Mon Jun 21 13:52:35 2021
    In article <ijb227F8nl8U1@mid.individual.net>,
    Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
    On 20/06/2021 11:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

    BL was in general an extremely badly organised company. Factories
    scattered all over the place. With no plans for when things didn't go the way they hoped/wanted. A prime example of how 'us and them' style of
    labour relations (on both sides) doesn't work.


    Found this a good read.

    https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/rover/sd1/

    I chatted to a chap - long retired - who was a production engineer at BL
    back in the day. At a car show.

    He told many a horror story. Like when they transferred the Triumph TR7 production line to a different factory and location. Zero training given
    to the workers - yet they were expected to produce the same numbers per
    day from the off. And of course who got blamed for assembly faults?

    Things like doors often selective assembly. Yet only a fixed time allowed
    for this. Meaning you could only allow for a couple of tries in the time
    slot. No wonder panel gaps were hit or miss.

    And many other such stories.

    It also varied between factories in the group. Land Rover built all the V8 engines, and were generally left to their own devices. Meaning there were
    very very few quality problems with those.

    --
    *Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Davey on Mon Jun 21 16:53:23 2021
    In article <20210621163449.163c7a1d@david-NL40-50CU>,
    Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:52:35 +0100
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    I chatted to a chap - long retired - who was a production engineer at
    BL back in the day. At a car show.

    He told many a horror story. Like when they transferred the Triumph
    TR7 production line to a different factory and location. Zero
    training given to the workers - yet they were expected to produce the
    same numbers per day from the off. And of course who got blamed for assembly faults?

    Things like doors often selective assembly. Yet only a fixed time
    allowed for this. Meaning you could only allow for a couple of tries
    in the time slot. No wonder panel gaps were hit or miss.

    Such a contrast from when the Japanese makers opened up in the US. If
    there was a problem on the assembly line, anyone could pull the cord to
    stop the line. It would not run again until the problem was fixed.
    Result: Quality cars.
    On one job at Toyota in Kentucky, we were tuning up one of the ovens,
    making adjustments to the zone temperatures and controller responses.
    For every change, we had to do a full test of the result, which took
    about an hour and a half each time. We could only go home when everyone
    was finally satisfied, and it was pronounced ready for production the
    next day.

    Yes - the annoying thing is BL designed some rather nice cars. Had they
    been fully developed and well built, could have been world beaters.
    Instead they chose to partner with Honda and make some of the most dreary
    cars on the roads. Do wonder if BMW has been given decent government
    backing they could have turned it round - they made a decent start with
    the 75.

    --
    *In "Casablanca", Humphrey Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam" *

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Davey@21:1/5 to dave@davenoise.co.uk on Mon Jun 21 16:34:49 2021
    On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:52:35 +0100
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    I chatted to a chap - long retired - who was a production engineer at
    BL back in the day. At a car show.

    He told many a horror story. Like when they transferred the Triumph
    TR7 production line to a different factory and location. Zero
    training given to the workers - yet they were expected to produce the
    same numbers per day from the off. And of course who got blamed for
    assembly faults?

    Things like doors often selective assembly. Yet only a fixed time
    allowed for this. Meaning you could only allow for a couple of tries
    in the time slot. No wonder panel gaps were hit or miss.

    Such a contrast from when the Japanese makers opened up in the US. If
    there was a problem on the assembly line, anyone could pull the cord to
    stop the line. It would not run again until the problem was fixed.
    Result: Quality cars.
    On one job at Toyota in Kentucky, we were tuning up one of the ovens,
    making adjustments to the zone temperatures and controller responses.
    For every change, we had to do a full test of the result, which took
    about an hour and a half each time. We could only go home when everyone
    was finally satisfied, and it was pronounced ready for production the
    next day.
    --
    Davey.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fredxx@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 21 19:48:59 2021
    On 21/06/2021 16:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
    In article <20210621163449.163c7a1d@david-NL40-50CU>,
    Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
    On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:52:35 +0100
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    I chatted to a chap - long retired - who was a production engineer at
    BL back in the day. At a car show.

    He told many a horror story. Like when they transferred the Triumph
    TR7 production line to a different factory and location. Zero
    training given to the workers - yet they were expected to produce the
    same numbers per day from the off. And of course who got blamed for
    assembly faults?

    Things like doors often selective assembly. Yet only a fixed time
    allowed for this. Meaning you could only allow for a couple of tries
    in the time slot. No wonder panel gaps were hit or miss.

    Such a contrast from when the Japanese makers opened up in the US. If
    there was a problem on the assembly line, anyone could pull the cord to
    stop the line. It would not run again until the problem was fixed.
    Result: Quality cars.
    On one job at Toyota in Kentucky, we were tuning up one of the ovens,
    making adjustments to the zone temperatures and controller responses.
    For every change, we had to do a full test of the result, which took
    about an hour and a half each time. We could only go home when everyone
    was finally satisfied, and it was pronounced ready for production the
    next day.

    Yes - the annoying thing is BL designed some rather nice cars. Had they
    been fully developed and well built, could have been world beaters.
    Instead they chose to partner with Honda and make some of the most dreary cars on the roads.

    Maybe dreary but they had a better reputation than BL's own designs. If
    the BL was handed to Honda rather than BMW then we might still have BL.

    Do wonder if BMW has been given decent government
    backing they could have turned it round - they made a decent start with
    the 75.

    BL was always going to fail with or without government backing. BMW lost
    a fortune, that tax payers would otherwise have lost.

    Then of course some went back into UK ownership with aptly name Phoenix
    Vulture Holdings, of course supported by the UK government, so more
    money down the drain.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Holdings

    Perhaps if there wasn't a march through Birmingham against the Alchemy
    bid they might still be making family cars.

    The real problem specifically with Austin Rover was unions hell bent on
    taking the company down. I never understood their hatred towards UK car manufacturing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Fredxx on Tue Jun 22 10:59:46 2021
    In article <saqmus$idj$1@dont-email.me>,
    Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
    Yes - the annoying thing is BL designed some rather nice cars. Had they been fully developed and well built, could have been world beaters.
    Instead they chose to partner with Honda and make some of the most dreary cars on the roads.

    Maybe dreary but they had a better reputation than BL's own designs.

    Really? My SD1 was replaced by the 800 series, basically a Honda. An
    inferior car in almost every way. Just another ultra bland FWD generic.

    If
    the BL was handed to Honda rather than BMW then we might still have BL.

    Ah - right. But you later state it was all down to the unions. ;-)

    Do wonder if BMW has been given decent government
    backing they could have turned it round - they made a decent start with
    the 75.

    BL was always going to fail with or without government backing. BMW lost
    a fortune, that tax payers would otherwise have lost.

    The mess that was BL was never going to be sorted without huge investment.

    Then of course some went back into UK ownership with aptly name Phoenix Vulture Holdings, of course supported by the UK government, so more
    money down the drain.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Holdings

    Perhaps if there wasn't a march through Birmingham against the Alchemy
    bid they might still be making family cars.

    The real problem specifically with Austin Rover was unions hell bent on taking the company down. I never understood their hatred towards UK car manufacturing.

    And yet those same workers now make Minis etc for BMW. In the same places.

    Odd isn't it. Germany has a higher wage economy than the UK, yet manages
    to still make lots of cars. And compete against countries where costs are lower.

    Are you saying German workers are simply better than UK ones?

    --
    *I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrew@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 24 18:33:46 2021
    On 22/06/2021 10:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
    In article <saqmus$idj$1@dont-email.me>,
    Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
    Yes - the annoying thing is BL designed some rather nice cars. Had they
    been fully developed and well built, could have been world beaters.
    Instead they chose to partner with Honda and make some of the most dreary >>> cars on the roads.

    Maybe dreary but they had a better reputation than BL's own designs.

    Really? My SD1 was replaced by the 800 series, basically a Honda. An
    inferior car in almost every way. Just another ultra bland FWD generic.

    If
    the BL was handed to Honda rather than BMW then we might still have BL.

    Ah - right. But you later state it was all down to the unions. ;-)

    Do wonder if BMW has been given decent government
    backing they could have turned it round - they made a decent start with
    the 75.

    BL was always going to fail with or without government backing. BMW lost
    a fortune, that tax payers would otherwise have lost.

    The mess that was BL was never going to be sorted without huge investment.

    Then of course some went back into UK ownership with aptly name Phoenix
    Vulture Holdings, of course supported by the UK government, so more
    money down the drain.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Holdings

    Perhaps if there wasn't a march through Birmingham against the Alchemy
    bid they might still be making family cars.

    The real problem specifically with Austin Rover was unions hell bent on
    taking the company down. I never understood their hatred towards UK car
    manufacturing.

    And yet those same workers now make Minis etc for BMW. In the same places.


    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
    new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Hill@21:1/5 to Andrew on Fri Jun 25 09:09:13 2021
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
    new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the
    left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
    the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
    self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adrian Caspersz@21:1/5 to Peter Hill on Fri Jun 25 17:58:26 2021
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
    new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the
    left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
    the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
    self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.


    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
    to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
    advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
    abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.

    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.

    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
    close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
    someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
    over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.

    So different attitudes...

    --
    Adrian C

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Hill@21:1/5 to Adrian Caspersz on Sat Jun 26 07:42:50 2021
    On 25/06/2021 17:58, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
    new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all
    the left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin,
    never the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive
    "superblend" self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.


    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
    to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
    advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
    abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.

    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.

    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
    close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
    over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.

    So different attitudes...


    When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the
    sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing
    shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
    stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Peter Hill on Sat Jun 26 12:39:51 2021
    In article <sb6i97$mjb$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
    Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
    When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
    stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.

    That doesn't make sense to me. Main bearing housings are usually line
    bored.

    The crank may well have grinding tolerances. Requiring selective bearing shells. But that's for the crank bearing tolerance, not the bearing
    housing. In the same way as pistons once needed selective assembly.

    --
    *A cartoonist was found dead in his home. Details are sketchy.*

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fredxx@21:1/5 to Adrian Caspersz on Sat Jun 26 13:18:56 2021
    On 25/06/2021 17:58, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
    new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all
    the left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin,
    never the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive
    "superblend" self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.


    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
    to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
    advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
    abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.

    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.

    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
    close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
    over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.

    So different attitudes...

    Yet the most successful gun in the world designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov
    was one built to agricultural tolerances.

    There is a reason why it is successful, and reliable. And why others are
    called 'Widow Makers".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian Jackson@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 26 16:18:05 2021
    In message <sb75vg$ati$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.co.uk>
    writes
    On 25/06/2021 17:58, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the >>>> new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one >>>piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all
    the left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin,
    never the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive >>>"superblend" self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.
    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with
    non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that >>accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without >>having to going to the extremes of special working practices. That
    does have its advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an >>extended life abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.
    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and >>reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.
    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily
    sail close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day
    ... Then someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and >>training over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.
    So different attitudes...

    Yet the most successful gun in the world designed by Mikhail
    Kalashnikov was one built to agricultural tolerances.

    There is a reason why it is successful, and reliable. And why others
    are called 'Widow Makers".

    In the 1970s, a works colleague had a Hillman Hunter estate. He did
    various bits of maintenance on it, including stripping down and
    refurbishing the automatic gearbox (in the works mechanical workshop
    while leaving the car in the carpark for a few days). He reckoned that
    Hillman deliberately designed their vehicles to work with loose
    tolerance in order to allow them to be easily serviced and maintained in
    the far distant parts of the British Empire.
    --
    Ian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Adrian Caspersz on Sat Jun 26 16:27:06 2021
    In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
    new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
    the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
    self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.


    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
    to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
    advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
    abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.

    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.

    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
    close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
    over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.

    So different attitudes...

    Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12
    engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made
    the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
    work to the close tolerance needed.

    Of course it's the sort of story every maker criticises a rival with. The smallest hypodermic needle being sent back with one threaded through it.
    And so on.

    --
    *If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? *

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Peter Hill on Sat Jun 26 16:29:56 2021
    In article <sb6i97$mjb$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
    Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
    When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
    stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.

    Certain types of treatment to crankshafts mean they can't be reground. And aluminium cylinder bore are coated, so can't be re-bored either. But if
    that treatment extends the life dramatically, the engine may well never
    need a major overhaul anyway.

    --
    *When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say? *

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Ian Jackson on Sat Jun 26 18:25:54 2021
    In article <EBIU3aBtU01gFwS8@brattleho.plus.com>,
    Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
    In the 1970s, a works colleague had a Hillman Hunter estate. He did
    various bits of maintenance on it, including stripping down and
    refurbishing the automatic gearbox (in the works mechanical workshop
    while leaving the car in the carpark for a few days). He reckoned that Hillman deliberately designed their vehicles to work with loose
    tolerance in order to allow them to be easily serviced and maintained in
    the far distant parts of the British Empire.

    Hillman didn't make the auto box.

    --
    *Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From stephen.hull@btinternet.com@21:1/5 to dave@davenoise.co.uk on Sat Jun 26 18:43:20 2021
    In message <5942b14267dave@davenoise.co.uk>
    "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

    In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the
    new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the >> > left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
    the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
    self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.


    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese
    production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide
    tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
    to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
    advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
    abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.

    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and
    reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.

    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
    close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
    someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
    over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.

    So different attitudes...

    Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12 >engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made >the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
    work to the close tolerance needed.

    I remember working for Rolls Royce in the finishing shop during the
    1980's when their rear light reflectors were rejected by the Japanese
    because they weren't polished enough, yet we were expected to except
    their crap at the time.




    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian Jackson@21:1/5 to dave@davenoise.co.uk on Sat Jun 26 19:52:55 2021
    In message <5942bc2377dave@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> writes
    In article <EBIU3aBtU01gFwS8@brattleho.plus.com>,
    Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
    In the 1970s, a works colleague had a Hillman Hunter estate. He did
    various bits of maintenance on it, including stripping down and
    refurbishing the automatic gearbox (in the works mechanical workshop
    while leaving the car in the carpark for a few days). He reckoned that
    Hillman deliberately designed their vehicles to work with loose
    tolerance in order to allow them to be easily serviced and maintained in
    the far distant parts of the British Empire.

    Hillman didn't make the auto box.

    But he still refurbished it - and he did a fair bit of other maintenance
    and overhauling. At least some of the rest of the car must have been
    made by Hillman (a Chrysler company, IIRC)!
    --
    Ian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Hill@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 26 23:32:14 2021
    On 26/06/2021 16:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
    In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the >>>> new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the
    UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the >>> left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
    the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
    self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.


    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese
    production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide
    tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
    to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
    advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
    abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.

    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and
    reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.

    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
    close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
    someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
    over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.

    So different attitudes...

    Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12 engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
    work to the close tolerance needed.


    It was the other way round. Rolls-Royce made parts to a slack tolerance
    and fitted them to the required tolerance. Fitting was done by skilled craftsmen "Fitters" and would entail hand scraping, lapping, honing,
    filing or a final light machining. The car makers told Rolls-Royce that
    if they were to have any hope of supplying the demand they would have to
    adopt car makers interchangeable fits.

    Car makers every part fitted every other part to much tighter tolerance.
    If very tight tolerance was needed there would be selective fit. Such as pistons having 4 or 5 grades.

    https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a30763715/rolls-royce-vs-packard-who-built-a-better-merlin/

    Of course it's the sort of story every maker criticises a rival with. The smallest hypodermic needle being sent back with one threaded through it.
    And so on.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fredxx@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 27 00:23:39 2021
    On 26/06/2021 16:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
    In article <sb6i97$mjb$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
    Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
    When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the
    sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing
    shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
    stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.

    Certain types of treatment to crankshafts mean they can't be reground. And aluminium cylinder bore are coated, so can't be re-bored either. But if
    that treatment extends the life dramatically, the engine may well never
    need a major overhaul anyway.

    How many treatments? Most are a very thin layer, such as nitriding. Shot peening being another.

    Both can be done after a reground, but I've always been sceptical how
    they increase the life for the crankshaft.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 27 09:45:49 2021
    On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 23:32:14 +0100, Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    On 26/06/2021 16:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
    In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the >>>>> new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the >>>>> UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the >>>> left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
    the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
    self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.


    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese
    production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide
    tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
    to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
    advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
    abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.

    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and
    reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.

    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
    close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
    someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
    over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.

    So different attitudes...

    Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12
    engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made >> the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
    work to the close tolerance needed.


    It was the other way round. Rolls-Royce made parts to a slack tolerance
    and fitted them to the required tolerance. Fitting was done by skilled >craftsmen "Fitters" and would entail hand scraping, lapping, honing,
    filing or a final light machining. The car makers told Rolls-Royce that
    if they were to have any hope of supplying the demand they would have to >adopt car makers interchangeable fits.

    Car makers every part fitted every other part to much tighter tolerance.
    If very tight tolerance was needed there would be selective fit. Such as >pistons having 4 or 5 grades.

    https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a30763715/rolls-royce-vs-packard-who-built-a-better-merlin/

    Of course it's the sort of story every maker criticises a rival with.
    smallest hypodermic needle being sent back with one threaded through it.
    And so on.


    Yet if you go to the science museum in London (I'm assuming these
    exhibits are still there) you can see an actual Merlin engine cut-way juxtaposed with a Messerschmitt from a 109. The build quality of the
    former knocks the latter into a cocked hat. It's astonishing that RR
    were able to turn out that kind of quality in wartime. Check it out
    sometime; it's a work of art in its own right.
    Actually it may have been the Imperial War Museum...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Hill@21:1/5 to Fredxx on Sun Jun 27 09:34:21 2021
    On 27/06/2021 00:23, Fredxx wrote:
    On 26/06/2021 16:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
    In article <sb6i97$mjb$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
        Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
    When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the
    sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main bearing >>> shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't
    stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.

    Certain types of treatment to crankshafts mean they can't be reground.
    And
    aluminium cylinder bore are coated, so can't be re-bored either. But if
    that treatment extends the life dramatically, the engine may well never
    need a major overhaul anyway.

    How many treatments? Most are a very thin layer, such as nitriding. Shot peening being another.

    Both can be done after a reground, but I've always been sceptical how
    they increase the life for the crankshaft.



    Shot peening introduces a compressive layer at the surface. As
    compressive stresses do not crack, resistance to fatigue cracking is
    greatly improved. The stress is additive, a tensile stress that would
    normally cause cracking can be reduced below the endurance limit. If
    stress is below endurance limit of steel it will never crack. Other
    materials with alloys such as titanium, nickel or aluminium have no
    endurance limit, they will crack with very small stresses applied often
    enough (Mr Geller's stainless steel tea spoons). To double the cyclic
    life the stress only has to reduce by 12.3%. For instance, 500 Mpa
    tensile stress with 61 MPa compressive stress due to shot peen.

    All rotating jet engine parts, shafts, discs and drums are shot peened. Everything in a jet engine is going to crack sometime. The art and cost
    is removing and replacing them at 2/3 of the life that the worst min
    spec part will fail at.

    All journal bearing surfaces should be hardened and polished. This
    prevents scuffing on startup before oil film develops.

    The treatment that is pure hogwash is dunking in cryogenic Nitrogen. The
    only aerospace parts that are processed using cryogenic heat treatment
    are steel ball and roller bearing tracks. They use an acetone and solid
    CO2 mixture at -75°C to quench the red hot bearing ring, the whole
    heating and quench process is done in an inert atmosphere to prevent
    oxidation. This is to obtain the required hardness and not life. As each
    flight for a large civil jet engine is around £500 in overhaul costs,
    one more flight life would pay for a huge amount of liquid nitrogen
    dunked parts. But as it doesn't give any life improvement at all they
    don't bother. Dunking parts in liquid nitrogen is worse than using
    water. Water makes steam which insulates the hot part, nitrogen will
    boil and bubble just the same with room temperature parts. That's why
    quenching is normally done in oil.

    Meanwhile jet engine makers do platinum plate some parts, for corrosion protection, paint would burn off.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 27 09:58:34 2021
    On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 23:32:14 +0100, Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    On 26/06/2021 16:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
    In article <ijmg9iFf0hmU1@mid.individual.net>,
    Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
    On 25/06/2021 09:09, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 24/06/2021 18:33, Andrew wrote:

    BS. None of the original austin rover car workers were employed at the >>>>> new Mini factory. BMW trained people from scratch.

    Nissan similarly refused to employ anyone who had ever worked in the >>>>> UK car industry. They employed local people and trained them in the
    Nissan-way from the outset.

    Which eliminated anyone that worked to "British standard piss fit".

    Norton forged crankshafts in one piece. Fully machined them in one
    piece. Then parted them in the middle to bolt a flywheel in. Put all the >>>> left halves in one bin and all the right halves in another bin, never
    the twain to meet again. Then they had to fit expensive "superblend"
    self aligning bearings to survive the out of true running.


    Various stories exist across manufacturing industries with non-Japanese
    production lines purposely having to make designs that accepted wide
    tolerances, which worked, and were serviceable without having to going
    to the extremes of special working practices. That does have its
    advantages, particularly when some UK vehicles have an extended life
    abroad in the midst of basic tools and training.

    However the Japanese like their fine production for performance and
    reliability, and a worker would strive to make parts to close
    tolerances, well within in the range of allowable.

    In the west making a similar product we'd naturally and unhappily sail
    close to the tolerance limits of the range, and call it a day ... Then
    someone would have to implement even stricter tolerances and training
    over here, with expense, to manufacture equivalent products.

    So different attitudes...

    Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12
    engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made >> the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to
    work to the close tolerance needed.


    It was the other way round. Rolls-Royce made parts to a slack tolerance
    and fitted them to the required tolerance. Fitting was done by skilled >craftsmen "Fitters" and would entail hand scraping, lapping, honing,
    filing or a final light machining. The car makers told Rolls-Royce that
    if they were to have any hope of supplying the demand they would have to >adopt car makers interchangeable fits.

    Fettling. And R-R was not a volume car maker but a specialist marque
    noted above all else for quality. So a rather spurious comparison
    there.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dave Plowman (News)@21:1/5 to Peter Hill on Sun Jun 27 11:16:35 2021
    In article <sb89ta$3fv$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
    Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Remember the story of Rolls allowing a US company(s) to make their V12 engine, as used in the Spitfire etc, under licence? The US ones never made the specs, power wise. According to Rolls, because of not being able to work to the close tolerance needed.


    It was the other way round. Rolls-Royce made parts to a slack tolerance
    and fitted them to the required tolerance. Fitting was done by skilled craftsmen "Fitters" and would entail hand scraping, lapping, honing,
    filing or a final light machining. The car makers told Rolls-Royce that
    if they were to have any hope of supplying the demand they would have to adopt car makers interchangeable fits.

    I never stated how Rolls achieved the tight tolerances needed. Only that
    they did.

    --
    *The older you get, the better you realize you were.

    Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
    To e-mail, change noise into sound.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fredxx@21:1/5 to Peter Hill on Sun Jun 27 21:25:47 2021
    On 27/06/2021 09:34, Peter Hill wrote:
    On 27/06/2021 00:23, Fredxx wrote:
    On 26/06/2021 16:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
    In article <sb6i97$mjb$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
        Peter Hill <skyshac@yahoo.com> wrote:
    When Yamaha re-designed the Ford Kent into the Zetec to accommodate the >>>> sloppy tolerance of Ford's block machining line they had 20 main
    bearing
    shell thicknesses with the right tight running clearance. They couldn't >>>> stock undersize shells so the bottom end can't be repaired.

    Certain types of treatment to crankshafts mean they can't be
    reground. And
    aluminium cylinder bore are coated, so can't be re-bored either. But if
    that treatment extends the life dramatically, the engine may well never
    need a major overhaul anyway.

    How many treatments? Most are a very thin layer, such as nitriding.
    Shot peening being another.

    Both can be done after a reground, but I've always been sceptical how
    they increase the life for the crankshaft.



    Shot peening introduces a compressive layer at the surface. As
    compressive stresses do not crack, resistance to fatigue cracking is
    greatly improved. The stress is additive, a tensile stress that would normally cause cracking can be reduced below the endurance limit. If
    stress is below endurance limit of steel it will never crack.

    I am aware of the principles, but generally crankshafts are designed to
    be fairly bullet-proof, and normal motoring should not cause cracking.
    If, on the other hand, we were boy racers, then such treatment may well
    improve the life of the crank.

    Other
    materials with alloys such as titanium, nickel or aluminium have no
    endurance limit, they will crack with very small stresses applied often enough (Mr Geller's stainless steel tea spoons).

    I am aware of crack propagation and increased stress at a fracture but
    not of a level of stress that can endure a near infinite number of
    cycles of stress.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit

    Does suggest that titanium alloys also have a distinct limit.

    To double the cyclic
    life the stress only has to reduce by 12.3%. For instance, 500 Mpa
    tensile stress with 61 MPa compressive stress due to shot peen.

    All rotating jet engine parts, shafts, discs and drums are shot peened. Everything in a jet engine is going to crack sometime. The art and cost
    is removing and replacing them at 2/3 of the life that the worst min
    spec part will fail at.

    All journal bearing surfaces should be hardened and polished. This
    prevents scuffing on startup before oil film develops.

    The treatment that is pure hogwash is dunking in cryogenic Nitrogen. The
    only aerospace parts that are processed using cryogenic heat treatment
    are steel ball and roller bearing tracks. They use an acetone and solid
    CO2 mixture at -75°C to quench the red hot bearing ring, the whole
    heating and quench process is done in an inert atmosphere to prevent oxidation. This is to obtain the required hardness and not life. As each flight for a large civil jet engine is around £500 in overhaul costs,
    one more flight life would pay for a huge amount of liquid nitrogen
    dunked parts. But as it doesn't give any life improvement at all they
    don't bother. Dunking parts in liquid nitrogen is worse than using
    water. Water makes steam which insulates the hot part, nitrogen will
    boil and bubble just the same with room temperature parts. That's why quenching is normally done in oil.

    Meanwhile jet engine makers do platinum plate some parts, for corrosion protection, paint would burn off.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)