Ping Dave Plowman

[Davey]

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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Davey
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.

[Davey]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:18:13 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Davey
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.

[RJH]

Post by Davey
On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:18:13 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Davey
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).

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by RJH

Post by Davey
On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:18:13 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Davey
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by RJH

Post by Davey
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.

[Davey]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:57:07 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by RJH

Post by Davey
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Davey
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Davey
On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 11:57:07 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by RJH

Post by Davey
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.

[Adrian Caspersz]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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/

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

[Davey]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:52:35 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Davey
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:52:35 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

[Fredxx]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Davey
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:52:35 +0100

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

Post by Fredxx
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. ;-)

Post by Fredxx

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

Post by Fredxx
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?

[Andrew]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Fredxx

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

Post by Fredxx
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. ;-)

Post by Fredxx

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

Post by Fredxx
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.

[Peter Hill]

Post by Andrew
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.

[Adrian Caspersz]

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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...

[Peter Hill]

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Peter Hill
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Peter Hill
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.

[Fredxx]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Peter Hill
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.

[Peter Hill]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Peter Hill
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.

[Fredxx]

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Fredxx

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Peter Hill
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.

Post by Peter Hill
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.

Post by Peter Hill
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.

[Fredxx]

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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".

[Ian Jackson]

In message <sb75vg$ati$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.co.uk>
writes

Post by Fredxx

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Ian Jackson
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.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Ian Jackson
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)!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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.

[s***@btinternet.com]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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.




--

[Peter Hill]

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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/

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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/

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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...

[Cursitor Doom]

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Dave Plowman (News)

Post by Adrian Caspersz

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Andrew
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Peter Hill

Post by Dave Plowman (News)
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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by Davey
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.