Thread: Collar for semi-floating axles

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Once again poor British engineering practices being brushed over by the stroke of the technical writers pen.

They should all be manufactured the same, like the Japanese seem to be able to do in the millions of units while the Brits can't do it in the tens of units.

How can they justify sending a part into deepest darkest Africa just to find that it isn't a "selective fit" what rubbish is that.

A selective fit. It maybe ok for a large workshop with 50 or 60 in a bin.
what do you do, buy 8 to get 2 to fit. Send the other 6 back for a credit?

Parts that have to be fitted together with a known interference either have to be made to a high precision ($$) or the alternative is to selectively fit the parts. You have to remember we are talking late 40's early 50's I don't think the Japanese manufacturers were any different at the time.
You also need to compensate for wear if collars are fitted and removed several times over the life of the axle because metal is removed each time. No good having a 'standard' size collar that won't fit to a worn axle.....

At the time the local Land Rover agent would have had the range of collar sizes or they would be a phonecall and snailmail away.

I can understand the market today trying to supply a 'standard' size because it's too hard to stock a range of sizes for what is probably a relatively low turnover item. Plus we now have the benefit of 'bearing fit' adhesives which were not available in the 40's & 50's.

Back in those days some companies even selectively fitted pistons. You had a '0', '+' and '-' depending on the size the block had been bored to.
Pistons were matched the size the bores ended up. Probably allowed wear on the boring tool to be compensated for.


Colin

the device used to remove the collars . You need a large stout vice and a stilson wrench .. and a length of pipe for leverage ..and strong muscles

Mike

Originally Posted by gromit

...

Back in those days some companies even selectively fitted pistons. You had a '0', '+' and '-' depending on the size the block had been bored to.
Pistons were matched the size the bores ended up. Probably allowed wear on the boring tool to be compensated for.

Colin

If that were the reason rather that the lack of good "precision" engineering, then why don't we "selectively" fit bearings right next door.

It is the same reason that Land Rovers leak, the myth of British Engineering, all hype and no substance.

Diana

Diana,

The bearings need an interference fit that is enough to stop the inner race from spinning on the shaft so it can be a heavy interference or a light interference and still do it's job.
The collar has to be a controlled interference because it is all that is holding the axle & wheel in place axially.

I remember many years ago the 'oil leak' problem being aimed at British bikes, the Japanese bikes apparently didn't leak.
When you dug a bit further you found that the Japanese bikes were very new at the time and were almost always dealer serviced, the British bikes were home serviced/maintained. Put together properly and properly maintained they didn't leak (same as Land Rovers).
Unfortunately the myth continues....

I've run many British bikes and Land Rovers over the years and they didn't leak unless a seal had failed or they were from an era when the manufacturer only made a token attempt at sealing, but this can often be overcome.
My 1957 Panther has a gaping hole in the back of the chaincase that the gearbox mainshaft passes through, it does have a lip surrounding the hole that diverts oil around it but that's all. I cured the problem about 25 years ago by adding a foam disk that seals the rear of the hole, keeps the dirt out and slows leaks down to the occasional drip. Not sure if any '57 Japanese bikes had the same design problem.



Colin

Still won't accept it.

New parts should have the correct precision engineered component. Worn components may need an under-size collar you order after measuring it with a micrometer. I'll keep saying it, bearings are never selective fit.

If the Brits have such good engineering why does a Land Rover have a paper gasket under under a drive flange which has all the shock loads and stresses of driving, why was the cap on the same hub merely a press fit without an "O" ring seal for so many years. An Archimedes screw on the crankshaft instead of an oil seal, I can go on and on and on and on.

It's just crappy engineering.

Diana,

I guess everyone has their own opinion, but personally I would have to disagree with your 'crappy engineering' comment.

The screw type main seal was common to car many manufacturers of the time (and much later) , paper gasket under the drive flange isn't a problem if the bolts are correctly tightened, cap on the hub doesn't leak on my S1 (yet) but an O-ring seal or modern sealant will be used if it does leak.
The problem is you cannot produce a 'Rolls Royce' for the price of a Land Rover so parts are 'cost engineered' for mass production both then and today. This can lead to problems which are often fixed under warranty or cured by the time the re-vamped model is released.
There is also the additional problem of comparing 40's engineering methods with what we have available today.

I like them the way they are and accept that we now have better engineering methods and solutions , some of which can be used to keep them on the road 60 years after they were introduced.

Back to the original point, bearings and semi floating axle collars perform very different functions so you need different interference fits. Today you could probably rely on a bearing fit adhesive and a common sized collar but you would need to talk with an axle specialist to confirm that this would be acceptable.

Colin

Diana, you are comparing 1940s British engineering with 1980s Japanese engineering - and I can vouch from personal experience that 1960s Japanese engineering was nothing to get excited about! (speaking Toyota Landcruiser - I had one from new as a company car, and could give a long list of engineering and manufacturing shortcomings)

And the other point is that there seems to be confusion between manufacturing precision and engineering. Manufacturing precision is having selective fit or one fits all in this case - engineering is replacing the semifloating axle with a full floating axle as Rover did in 1958, to be followed by Toyota about ten years later, or designing and manufacturing a suitable diesel in 1956, to be followed by Toyota fifteen years later.

Manufacturing precision is limited by available machinery. Rover has always had very small production runs compared to major manufacturers (even when part of Leyland) and hence had to make do with old or cheap manufacturing equipment. It is a shortcoming, but difficult to see what they could have done about it. But it is not an engineering shortcoming, it is a manufacturing shortcoming.

John