Started the axle strip down...

steve wrote:
> Lee_D wrote:
>
>> Well spotted! I thought it was a bit ott So am I right in thinking that
>> it'll be between 2.5 lb and 3.3lb pull on the sping balance? I'm confusing
>> myself more as the spring balance makes no reference to ft or inches... just
>> kg and lb.
>
> Remeber you're applying a TORQUE, the greater the lever arm the less the
> pull, so 1 lb ft is 1 lbf at 1 foot. 2 lbf at 6 inches etc., so the
> product of lbf and inches is constant.
>
> Whole axle is coming out of Bob, when it stops raining, full strip down,
> rebuild and diff rolling

BTW Have you any tips for getting all the rod ends off ?
Ta.

Steve

steve <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
> BTW Have you any tips for getting all the rod ends off ?
> Ta.
>
> Steve

I just used a forked chisel type splitter that you whack with an 'ammer.
Found them to be much mure effective than the press types as they tend to
feck the threads less. You do need to be careful with the rubber boots
though.

Lee D

Lee_D wrote:
> steve <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
>> BTW Have you any tips for getting all the rod ends off ?
>> Ta.
>>
>> Steve
>
> I just used a forked chisel type splitter that you whack with an 'ammer.
> Found them to be much mure effective than the press types as they tend to
> feck the threads less. You do need to be careful with the rubber boots
> though.
>
> Lee D
>
>
>
So you don't unscrew the buggers first ?

Steve

steve <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:

> So you don't unscrew the buggers first ?
>
> Steve

As in the castle nut? or are we like removing them from the track rods
themselves now?

If you mean the castle nut.. yes.. split pin out (broken mine and got remain
stuck for a latter session!), undo castle nut and wallop.

If the castle nut turns the threaded bit as well then insert spitter and
wallop once then retry castle nut. If it carries on then invest in a nut
splitter (huge satisfaction for little effort!)

If you mean the tre from the track rod then soak in plus gas for a good
while... if that doesn't help.. heat it like a hot thing, clamp the TRE in a
vice, mole grips on the track rod fixed good and propper and give it some
therapy... check of course it's being turned the correct way to undo as some
have left hand threads but I canner recall which right now.

Lee D

Lee_D wrote:

> Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> uttered summat worrerz
> funny about:
>
>>BUT - read your manual carefully. The 101 Military manual quotes the
>>desired resistance to rotation as 30-40 lbf.IN for new bearings - NOT
>>30-40 lbf.FT which is a figure 12 times higher. The inch figure is of
>>the right order of magnitude.
>
>
> Well spotted! I thought it was a bit ott So am I right in thinking that
> it'll be between 2.5 lb and 3.3lb pull on the sping balance? I'm confusing
> myself more as the spring balance makes no reference to ft or inches... just
> kg and lb.
>
> Lee D

Steve's given a bit of an explanation. Let me try too.

What you haven't picked up on is that torque is a turning action, not
just a pull (that's the lb. bit) and you also need to involve the
distance away from the shaft centre line at which that pull is being
applied (that's the ft. and in. bit)

Say you want to generate torque by wrapping a string round the shaft
and pulling on the string.

The torque is the pull (measured on your spring balance) multiplied by
the radius of the shaft where the string is wound round.

So if your shaft is 2 inches in diameter, it has a radius of one inch.
If you then apply a 40 lb. pull on the string you will generate 40
lbf.in of torque.

Or put another way:
Torque (lbf.in) = Pull (pounds) x 0.5 x shaft diameter (inches)

Lee_D wrote:
>
> I just used a forked chisel type splitter that you whack with an 'ammer.
> Found them to be much mure effective than the press types as they tend to
> feck the threads less. You do need to be careful with the rubber boots
> though.

Fork type splitters feck the ball joint or tie rod end they are used on.
The should NOT be used on any part that you wish to re-use.


--
EMB

steve <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
> Lee_D wrote:
>
>> Well spotted! I thought it was a bit ott So am I right in
>> thinking that it'll be between 2.5 lb and 3.3lb pull on the sping
>> balance? I'm confusing myself more as the spring balance makes no
>> reference to ft or inches... just kg and lb.
>
> Remeber you're applying a TORQUE, the greater the lever arm the less
> the pull, so 1 lb ft is 1 lbf at 1 foot. 2 lbf at 6 inches etc., so
> the product of lbf and inches is constant.

look I knew I should have hit the bottle tonight, this may have been simpler
;-)

So if the hole on the flange is 2 inch for sake of argument from the centre
of the pinon how many lbs should the spring balance show to be within
tollerance of the guideance for new bearings? (30 to 40 lbf in in the book)

Lee D

Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> uttered summat worrerz
funny about:

> So if your shaft is 2 inches in diameter, it has a radius of one inch.
> If you then apply a 40 lb. pull on the string you will generate 40
> lbf.in of torque.
>
> Or put another way:
> Torque (lbf.in) = Pull (pounds) x 0.5 x shaft diameter (inches)

Dougal , cheers... thats just registered now...

Lee_D wrote:

> steve <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
>
>>Lee_D wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well spotted! I thought it was a bit ott So am I right in
>>>thinking that it'll be between 2.5 lb and 3.3lb pull on the sping
>>>balance? I'm confusing myself more as the spring balance makes no
>>>reference to ft or inches... just kg and lb.
>>
>>Remeber you're applying a TORQUE, the greater the lever arm the less
>>the pull, so 1 lb ft is 1 lbf at 1 foot. 2 lbf at 6 inches etc., so
>>the product of lbf and inches is constant.
>
>
> look I knew I should have hit the bottle tonight, this may have been simpler
> ;-)
>
> So if the hole on the flange is 2 inch for sake of argument from the centre
> of the pinon how many lbs should the spring balance show to be within
> tollerance of the guideance for new bearings? (30 to 40 lbf in in the book)
>
> Lee D

The radius is 2 inches. A pull of 20 lb will therefore give you 2 x 20
= 40 lb.in

Using the flange like that may not be very accurate. You need to
overcome the initial 'reluctance' to rotate then keep the string at a
tangent to the shaft whilst you attempt to measure the pull - so
you're moving the spring balance round with the flange as it moves.
Not very easy. That's why the string is often suggested as it is so
easy. Is there not a cylindrical bit on the flange that you could wrap
string around?

Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> uttered summat worrerz
funny about:
> The radius is 2 inches. A pull of 20 lb will therefore give you 2 x 20
> = 40 lb.in
>
> Using the flange like that may not be very accurate. You need to
> overcome the initial 'reluctance' to rotate then keep the string at a
> tangent to the shaft whilst you attempt to measure the pull - so
> you're moving the spring balance round with the flange as it moves.
> Not very easy. That's why the string is often suggested as it is so
> easy. Is there not a cylindrical bit on the flange that you could wrap
> string around?

I'm sure there will be, I'll take a peek tomorrow and mesure the radius. Bit
short on string but a nice length of wire should have the desired affect.

Glad I checked this I'd have been up the creek otherwise (like lb ft wise!)

Makes me wonder about the IIa now but it doesn't whine or moan so I guess
I've forgotten all the above. I know Ashcrofts instructions were pretty
idiot proof at the time.

Lee D

EMB wrote:

> Fork type splitters feck the ball joint or tie rod end they are used on.
> The should NOT be used on any part that you wish to re-use.

So ? T'buggers have to come off somehow ! Any other techniques ? There
are 6 of 'em to split/ diconnect.

Steve

steve wrote:
> EMB wrote:
>
>> Fork type splitters feck the ball joint or tie rod end they are used on.
>> The should NOT be used on any part that you wish to re-use.
>
> So ? T'buggers have to come off somehow ! Any other techniques ? There
> are 6 of 'em to split/ diconnect.

Press type remover, or a solid whack with a hammer onto the side of the
bit that holds the taper.

--
EMB

On or around Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:02:19 +0100, steve
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>EMB wrote:
>
>> Fork type splitters feck the ball joint or tie rod end they are used on.
>> The should NOT be used on any part that you wish to re-use.
>
>So ? T'buggers have to come off somehow ! Any other techniques ? There
>are 6 of 'em to split/ diconnect.

I use a fork-an-ammer one on buggered joints. You can also get a posh
ball-joint separator with a fork and a hinged screw-arm thing which presses
down on the top of the thread - correctly used, this shouldn't damage
anything.

You can also pound on the outer periphery of the arm with a biggish hammer,
as per ascii-art below:
__
| |
| |
______| |__________________
hammer | / \
---> | / \ arm
here |___/ \_______________
| |
| joint |


hammering in that direction avoids an (slight) risk of damaging the arm. Get
the nut off first, of course. Enough hammering will normally make the joint
jump out of the arm. Some of them take quite a lot of hammering though.

You can hit it quite hard, they're generally big strong bits of metal.

Naturally, if you break things by following this advice, then I don't want
to know. I've not broken any though.


Having said all that - unless the joints are new or near-new, they're not
sufficiently expensive as to worry about - just lay in a stock of new ones

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
0123456789112345678921234567893123456789412345678951234567896123456789712345
1 weebl: What's this? | in recognition of the fun that is weebl and bob
2 bob: it a SigRuler! | check out the weebl and bob archive:
3 weebl: How Handy! | http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/archives.php

Austin Shackles wrote:

>
> You can also pound on the outer periphery of the arm with a biggish hammer,
> as per ascii-art below:
> __
> | |
> | |
> ______| |__________________
> hammer | / \
> ---> | / \ arm
> here |___/ \_______________
> | |
> | joint |
>
>
> hammering in that direction avoids an (slight) risk of damaging the arm. Get
> the nut off first, of course. Enough hammering will normally make the joint
> jump out of the arm. Some of them take quite a lot of hammering though.
>
> You can hit it quite hard, they're generally big strong bits of metal.

Thanks Austin - your artistic skills are better than mine (so pathetic
that I didn't bother with a pic).

As you allude, you want a FBH (feckin big hammer) and to give it a
bloody good swat - if it takes more than a couple of hits you're either
being a wimp or the hammer is too small.


--
EMB

Austin Shackles wrote:

>
> Having said all that - unless the joints are new or near-new, they're not
> sufficiently expensive as to worry about - just lay in a stock of new
ones
>

Can't get the 'kin nuts off - the tapers are turning. Why couldn't they
put a spanner flat beneath them ?

I'll have to check if they are standard parts, because I need to cut off
6 of 'em.

Steve

Steve Taylor wrote:

> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> >
> > Having said all that - unless the joints are new or near-new, they're
> not
> > sufficiently expensive as to worry about - just lay in a stock of new
> ones
> >
>
> Can't get the 'kin nuts off - the tapers are turning. Why couldn't they
> put a spanner flat beneath them ?
>
> I'll have to check if they are standard parts, because I need to cut off
> 6 of 'em.
>
> Steve

Get a big lever and apply force to the ball cup such as to seat the
taper. ...... Assuming that there's something against which to lever.

Steve Taylor wrote:

> Can't get the 'kin nuts off - the tapers are turning. Why couldn't they
> put a spanner flat beneath them ?
>
> I'll have to check if they are standard parts, because I need to cut off
> 6 of 'em.

Air impact wrench - buzz them undone.


--
EMB

Steve Taylor <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:

> Can't get the 'kin nuts off - the tapers are turning. Why couldn't
> they put a spanner flat beneath them ?
>
> I'll have to check if they are standard parts, because I need to cut
> off 6 of 'em.
>
> Steve

Nut splitter, you'll wonder how you ever got by without one once you have
it.

With two 101's it's a must ;-)

Oh and if my memory serves me right some of the 101 TRE are quite hard to
get ahold of but hopefully I'm wrong. a call to Darren should reveal all...
and how much effort you need to put in to get them off.

Lee D

EMB wrote:

> Air impact wrench - buzz them undone.

Now you're talkin'

Steve

On or around Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:38:22 +0100, Steve Taylor
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> >
> > Having said all that - unless the joints are new or near-new, they're not
> > sufficiently expensive as to worry about - just lay in a stock of new
>ones
> >
>
>Can't get the 'kin nuts off - the tapers are turning. Why couldn't they
>put a spanner flat beneath them ?
>
>I'll have to check if they are standard parts, because I need to cut off
>6 of 'em.

air impact gun comes in handy for that bit. If the joints face upwards, try
putting a jack under the joint and lifting it.

failing that, it's nut-splitting time, either with a nut splitter or a BFO
cold chisel and a BFO hammer.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588