Door Pillars

L

Larry

Guest

• Jul 21, 2004

• #1

As everyone probably knows by now, none of my door pillars are worth much.

Now ignoring the bulkhead, cos I am not going to be sorting that beyond
temporary repairs, what does it involve to replace the rear door pillars on
a series 3 109. I was looking and thought, they just bolt in don't they ????
or is there welding involved.

With all the stubborn screws and nuts I am encountering I reckon I am going
to have to invest in an angle grinder, as the hacksaw is a bit tedios. I
want to remove the rear floor to get a better look and nothing is shifting.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

 

J

JD

Guest

• Jul 21, 2004

• #2

Larry wrote:

> As everyone probably knows by now, none of my door pillars are worth much.
>
> Now ignoring the bulkhead, cos I am not going to be sorting that beyond
> temporary repairs, what does it involve to replace the rear door pillars
> on a series 3 109. I was looking and thought, they just bolt in don't they
> ???? or is there welding involved.
>
> With all the stubborn screws and nuts I am encountering I reckon I am
> going to have to invest in an angle grinder, as the hacksaw is a bit
> tedios. I want to remove the rear floor to get a better look and nothing
> is shifting.
>
>
I assume you are talking about a five door station wagon - I believe the
centre pillar, sill, and the sloping bit are one piece. So replacing just
the sloping bit involves welding. The rest bolts or rivets together.
JD

 

L

Larry

Guest

• Jul 21, 2004

• #3

They might have been one piece once, but they aren't now

I can fix the sloping bit with a patch, no problem what bothers me is the
bottom where the hinges go, as only one bolt is really holding the hinge,
not that the door won't shut mind, unlike the front where the hinges are
fine, just the the door is shaky.

Oh well does anyone recall the Africar project, you could have fixed that
with carpentry.

BTW why did they never make the front bulkheads out of aluminium would have
made more sence.

Never mind the rot, someone actually offered to buy it off me the other day
and he could see I was busy with the fibre glass matting.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry wrote:
>
> I assume you are talking about a five door station wagon - I believe the
> centre pillar, sill, and the sloping bit are one piece. So replacing just
> the sloping bit involves welding. The rest bolts or rivets together.
> JD

 

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #4

Larry wrote:
>
> BTW why did they never make the front bulkheads out of aluminium
> would have made more sence.
>
>
As I understand it,

a) strength (it's a major structural piece), and

b) fire resistance (all metals will burn, but steel burns much less easily
than ally, so holds back any fire in the engine bay for longer). I'm not
sure about C&U Regs, but I'm pretty sure that ARC regs specify a steel
bulkhead for this reason.

--

Rich
Tiggrr - V8 trialler
RR 4.6HSE

 

L

Larry

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #5

Well strenght goes to pot when it is shot through with rust, I am sure that
a suitably reinforced and scientifically designed aluminium bulkhead would
outperform a steel one.

As for fire resistance, never bothered Reliant, or Marcos did it, who used
GRP and Plywood respectively.


"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > BTW why did they never make the front bulkheads out of aluminium
> > would have made more sence.
> >
> >
> As I understand it,
>
> a) strength (it's a major structural piece), and
>
> b) fire resistance (all metals will burn, but steel burns much less easily
> than ally, so holds back any fire in the engine bay for longer). I'm not
> sure about C&U Regs, but I'm pretty sure that ARC regs specify a steel
> bulkhead for this reason.
>
> --
>
> Rich
> Tiggrr - V8 trialler
> RR 4.6HSE
>
>

 

D

David G. Bell

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #6

On Thursday, in article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "Larry" wrote:

> Well strenght goes to pot when it is shot through with rust, I am sure that
> a suitably reinforced and scientifically designed aluminium bulkhead would
> outperform a steel one.
>
> As for fire resistance, never bothered Reliant, or Marcos did it, who used
> GRP and Plywood respectively.

You know the firedoors you see in so many buildings? Plywood is
actually pretty good at holding back a fire. With a little care on the
choice of resin, so is GRP.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."

 

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #7

Larry wrote:
> Well strenght goes to pot when it is shot through with rust, I am
> sure that a suitably reinforced and scientifically designed aluminium
> bulkhead would outperform a steel one.

Maybe, but we're talking mass production here. Steel is strong and safe and
easy to work. Sure, it rusts eventually, but that doesn't stop the majority
of the world's cars being made of it.

> As for fire resistance, never bothered Reliant, or Marcos did it, who
> used GRP and Plywood respectively.

Interesting that you have chosen two cars with probably among the worst
safety records in the business! (Fine cars, both of them, but not exactly
crash-friendly.)

I don't know the answers to your questions; I was just suggesting possible
reasons.


--
Rich

Land Rovers
Boat
Dog
Wife
Kids - in that order

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #8

On or around Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:27:40 +0100 (BST),
[email protected] ("David G. Bell") enlightened us thusly:

>On Thursday, in article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Larry" wrote:
>
>> Well strenght goes to pot when it is shot through with rust, I am sure that
>> a suitably reinforced and scientifically designed aluminium bulkhead would
>> outperform a steel one.
>>
>> As for fire resistance, never bothered Reliant, or Marcos did it, who used
>> GRP and Plywood respectively.
>
>You know the firedoors you see in so many buildings? Plywood is
>actually pretty good at holding back a fire. With a little care on the
>choice of resin, so is GRP.

mind you, some fair few years ago we had a couple of old reliant body shells
to dispose of, and we hauled them into the middle of the (reasonable-sized)
yard and set light to 'em. It was quite difficult actually igniting it, in
the end I put some paraffin-soaked paper in one footwell and lit that. for
about a minute nothing much happened, then the fibreglass caught and started
to burn, and within 5 minutes you literally couldn't get within 20 feet of
it. Made a hellofa good fire, mind, with huge column of black smoke and
everything. Probably get shot for doing that these days.

after it had burnt out to a heap of dirty glass fibre, and cooled down,
sundry small alloy components such as door locks were discovered to have
been converted into molten puddles.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"It is a characteristic of the human mind to hate the man one has injured"
Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 45

 

J

JD

Guest

• Jul 23, 2004

• #9

Larry wrote:

(snip)
>
> BTW why did they never make the front bulkheads out of aluminium would
> have made more sence.
>
A small number of very early Series 1 actually did have an aluminium
bulkhead (hand made I believe) - they were used to keep production going
when the tooling for the bulkhead was damaged, while it was being repaired.

The problem with aluminium in this application (apart from cost) is that the
bulkhead has high point loads in places like the bottom of the door
pillars and the door hinges that would present design problems and/or
require very thick material in aluminium.

Probably a better idea - South African Landrovers built there during
sanctions had galvanised bulkheads.
(snip)

JD

 

J

JD

Guest

• Jul 21, 2004

• #10

Larry wrote:

> As everyone probably knows by now, none of my door pillars are worth much.
>
> Now ignoring the bulkhead, cos I am not going to be sorting that beyond
> temporary repairs, what does it involve to replace the rear door pillars
> on a series 3 109. I was looking and thought, they just bolt in don't they
> ???? or is there welding involved.
>
> With all the stubborn screws and nuts I am encountering I reckon I am
> going to have to invest in an angle grinder, as the hacksaw is a bit
> tedios. I want to remove the rear floor to get a better look and nothing
> is shifting.
>
>
I assume you are talking about a five door station wagon - I believe the
centre pillar, sill, and the sloping bit are one piece. So replacing just
the sloping bit involves welding. The rest bolts or rivets together.
JD

 

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #11

Larry wrote:
>
> BTW why did they never make the front bulkheads out of aluminium
> would have made more sence.
>
>
As I understand it,

a) strength (it's a major structural piece), and

b) fire resistance (all metals will burn, but steel burns much less easily
than ally, so holds back any fire in the engine bay for longer). I'm not
sure about C&U Regs, but I'm pretty sure that ARC regs specify a steel
bulkhead for this reason.

--

Rich
Tiggrr - V8 trialler
RR 4.6HSE

 

L

Larry

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #12

Well strenght goes to pot when it is shot through with rust, I am sure that
a suitably reinforced and scientifically designed aluminium bulkhead would
outperform a steel one.

As for fire resistance, never bothered Reliant, or Marcos did it, who used
GRP and Plywood respectively.


"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > BTW why did they never make the front bulkheads out of aluminium
> > would have made more sence.
> >
> >
> As I understand it,
>
> a) strength (it's a major structural piece), and
>
> b) fire resistance (all metals will burn, but steel burns much less easily
> than ally, so holds back any fire in the engine bay for longer). I'm not
> sure about C&U Regs, but I'm pretty sure that ARC regs specify a steel
> bulkhead for this reason.
>
> --
>
> Rich
> Tiggrr - V8 trialler
> RR 4.6HSE
>
>

 

D

David G. Bell

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #13

On Thursday, in article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "Larry" wrote:

> Well strenght goes to pot when it is shot through with rust, I am sure that
> a suitably reinforced and scientifically designed aluminium bulkhead would
> outperform a steel one.
>
> As for fire resistance, never bothered Reliant, or Marcos did it, who used
> GRP and Plywood respectively.

You know the firedoors you see in so many buildings? Plywood is
actually pretty good at holding back a fire. With a little care on the
choice of resin, so is GRP.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."

 

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #14

Larry wrote:
> Well strenght goes to pot when it is shot through with rust, I am
> sure that a suitably reinforced and scientifically designed aluminium
> bulkhead would outperform a steel one.

Maybe, but we're talking mass production here. Steel is strong and safe and
easy to work. Sure, it rusts eventually, but that doesn't stop the majority
of the world's cars being made of it.

> As for fire resistance, never bothered Reliant, or Marcos did it, who
> used GRP and Plywood respectively.

Interesting that you have chosen two cars with probably among the worst
safety records in the business! (Fine cars, both of them, but not exactly
crash-friendly.)

I don't know the answers to your questions; I was just suggesting possible
reasons.


--
Rich

Land Rovers
Boat
Dog
Wife
Kids - in that order

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Jul 22, 2004

• #15

On or around Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:27:40 +0100 (BST),
[email protected] ("David G. Bell") enlightened us thusly:

>On Thursday, in article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Larry" wrote:
>
>> Well strenght goes to pot when it is shot through with rust, I am sure that
>> a suitably reinforced and scientifically designed aluminium bulkhead would
>> outperform a steel one.
>>
>> As for fire resistance, never bothered Reliant, or Marcos did it, who used
>> GRP and Plywood respectively.
>
>You know the firedoors you see in so many buildings? Plywood is
>actually pretty good at holding back a fire. With a little care on the
>choice of resin, so is GRP.

mind you, some fair few years ago we had a couple of old reliant body shells
to dispose of, and we hauled them into the middle of the (reasonable-sized)
yard and set light to 'em. It was quite difficult actually igniting it, in
the end I put some paraffin-soaked paper in one footwell and lit that. for
about a minute nothing much happened, then the fibreglass caught and started
to burn, and within 5 minutes you literally couldn't get within 20 feet of
it. Made a hellofa good fire, mind, with huge column of black smoke and
everything. Probably get shot for doing that these days.

after it had burnt out to a heap of dirty glass fibre, and cooled down,
sundry small alloy components such as door locks were discovered to have
been converted into molten puddles.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"It is a characteristic of the human mind to hate the man one has injured"
Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 45