|
Post by enigmas on Nov 19, 2021 13:43:42 GMT
Do you mean the 5" low fog lights? If double filament certainly not standard but these headlights can be fitted in place of the standard sealed beam fog or LR spots but the clearance at the back is tight on the connections and the usual plug will not fit safely Why have tubes been fitted? Not required and will chafe on the internal ridges which most tubeless haveYou surprise me with this comment Phil! The rims on a P5 Rover are not designed for tubeless tyres....their design predates it even though some enthusiasts run them tubeless. There is no safety bead rolled into the rims during manufacture. Steel and alloy rims designed for tubeless tyres all incorporate a safety bead without exception. These cars (basically engineered in 1950s and with a suspension design reflecting the technology of that period) and the wheels fitted to them (rostyle or solid as per the 3 litre cars), were designed to use conventional cross ply tyres running at relatively low pressures, mid 20 psi on average. The suspension as designed was never meant for the use of radial ply tyres even though they are virtually universally fitted to these cars by most owner/enthusuasts today. Braking,steering and high speed driving is in most cases improved, especially on wet roads, but the ride quality is lessened. In the early 1960s my father purchased a Citroen ID19. A technologically very advanced car with an innovative long travel hydropneumatic suspension system, later adopted by Rolls Royce. The Michelin X radial tyre was specifically designed to be partnered to this vehicles unique suspension system. I've always driven my MK3 P5 coupe (fitted with rostyle wheels over 300,000 kms) on radial ply tyres but always with tubes fitted. Several years ago I had a pair of rostyle wheel centres fitted to modern 7" rims that incorporate safety beads in the rim design. I run these tubeless but not the standard factory rostyle wheels on the front of my coupe for the reasons outlined above. The safety beads "rolled into the 7" rims" during manufacture can be clearly seen in the picture below. The widened rim/rostyle wheel fitted with a tubeless tyre.
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 19, 2021 13:56:47 GMT
Getting there Vince Having done a "few" motors the grease goes hard and the intermediate gear gets totally seized so the whole gearing has to be removed and cleaned. The Armature is the other common problem if it's not seized it is best skimmed, I have had these having been so hot the Armature segments are floating around because the solder has melted! the fuse is 15A which is far too high they draw less than 5A if they are running ok? Reading up on the wiper motor John, aren't they designed to incorporate a thermal switch to protect the motor in the event of over heating or even in a situation if the motor starts to seize?
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Nov 19, 2021 16:51:59 GMT
Do you mean the 5" low fog lights? If double filament certainly not standard but these headlights can be fitted in place of the standard sealed beam fog or LR spots but the clearance at the back is tight on the connections and the usual plug will not fit safely Why have tubes been fitted? Not required and will chafe on the internal ridges which most tubeless haveYou surprise me with this comment Phil! The rims on a P5 Rover are not designed for tubeless tyres....their design predates it even though some enthusiasts run them tubeless. There is no safety bead rolled into the rims during manufacture. Steel and alloy rims designed for tubeless tyres all incorporate a safety bead without exception. These cars (basically engineered in 1950s and with a suspension design reflecting the technology of that period) and the wheels fitted to them (rostyle or solid as per the 3 litre cars), were designed to use conventional cross ply tyres running at relatively low pressures, mid 20 psi on average. The suspension as designed was never meant for the use of radial ply tyres even though they are virtually universally fitted to these cars by most owner/enthusuasts today. Braking,steering and high speed driving is in most cases improved, especially on wet roads, but the ride quality is lessened. In the early 1960s my father purchased a Citroen ID19. A technologically very advanced car with an innovative long travel hydropneumatic suspension system, later adopted by Rolls Royce. The Michelin X radial tyre was specifically designed to be partnered to this vehicles unique suspension system. I've always driven my MK3 P5 coupe (fitted with rostyle wheels over 300,000 kms) on radial ply tyres but always with tubes fitted. Several years ago I had a pair of rostyle wheel centres fitted to modern 7" rims that incorporate safety beads in the rim design. I run these tubeless but not the standard factory rostyle wheels on the front of my coupe for the reasons outlined above. The safety beads "rolled into the 7" rims" during manufacture can be clearly seen in the picture below. The widened rim/rostyle wheel fitted with a tubeless tyre. The wheels on P4 (from 1956) /P5s and P5Bs most certainly are designed for tubeless tyres including radials although tubeless X plies were fitted as standard. The issue is that modern wheels have a deeper safety ledge to suit modern low profile tyres. Running with tubes with ridged insides of tyres creates a lot of rubber dust from both tyre and tube and unless Wires are fitted it is not recommended. I have in an an emergency fitted tubes but certainly removed them when the slow air leak often caused by rim corrosion is sorted. I have done 100s of thousands of miles at high speeds in these cars with tubeless tyres and I think Rover Co and it successor companies and Rubery Owen which designed and made the tubeless rims would have had many product liability claims during production and after it ceased.
|
|
|
Post by Eric R on Nov 19, 2021 17:45:04 GMT
I am advised by my tyre fitting firm that tyre inner tubes are just not available these days apart from the odd ones here and there which are useless and they wont supply them. Does anyone source Michelin tubes in the UK?
|
|
|
Post by 3litrekiwi on Nov 19, 2021 19:42:14 GMT
This is an interesting topic. The parts book and user handbook specify tubeless but as Vince correctly points out, all modern wheels do have a ridge to reduce the liklihood of, I think, a tyre that has lost pressure coming off the rim. I decided after spending quite some time restoring the surface of my rims where the bead seats to fit tubeless tyres mainly due to the sphincter tightening experience of a tubed front tyre going flat almost immediately many years ago. I fitted these myself and I think the rims have a taper that may run up to a tighter fit than a modern rim has. They did take quite a bit of pressure to seat. My feeling is that provided the pressures are maintained, the sedate driving these cars inspire on twisty roads isn't likely to strip a tyre off. My car has a mix of wheels, some welded and at least one riveted. I was more concerned about the riveted ones holding pressure but this has not been a problem. Doing a bit of research, it seems that our cars were produced during the introduction of tubeless tyres and at some point the ridge became part of the standard design. This must have been for a reason however dual circuit brakes, abs, headlights that work, airbags and so on have also become something we expect. I guess it depends a bit on the intended driving style.
|
|
tonys
Rover Fanatic
Posts: 419
|
Post by tonys on Nov 19, 2021 20:35:02 GMT
Just out of interest I've had a look at some P5 brochures to see if they made any reference.
For info., my MK1 brochure (possibly 1959) states "easy clean wheels........ Tyres 6.70-15 tubeless. 710-15 optional etc". Unfortunately I can't copy it.
Later brochures specify the same tyre size but don't make any reference to tubeless.
A copy of the April 1961 Motorsport magazine roadtest of a MK1 P5 states Avon 6.70-15 tubeless in the specification section.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Nov 19, 2021 22:07:54 GMT
They were considered quite safe in 1957 and throughout P4/P5/P6 production.
Modern standards cannot be realistically applied if they are driven as intended. The tyres do not roll off the rim in normal use and sudden deflation is rare unlike tubed tyres. Most wheels were rivetted then as well without issue if they were in good order
As to tyres many fit 205/15 radials or even wider to the standard wheels which are in theory more prone to rolling off the rim particularly if underinflated.
It could be said (and has been on here) cars with single circuit brakes are dangerous as is also the lack of air bags and collapsible steering columns.
I used to drive 1950s FWD Auto Union DKWs and these had tubeless 15" wheels with X plies but the same size 185x15 Michelin X radials transformed the ride and allowed fast corning road holding just as they did to a lesser extent with VW Beetles also with the same size tyres. All these had the standard tubeless wheel rim and no tubes (or dual circuit brakes)
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Nov 19, 2021 22:10:15 GMT
Just out of interest I've had a look at some P5 brochures to see if they made any reference. For info., my MK1 brochure (possibly 1959) states "easy clean wheels........ Tyres 6.70-15 tubeless. 710-15 optional etc". Unfortunately I can't copy it. Later brochures specify the same tyre size but don't make any reference to tubeless. A copy of the April 1961 Motorsport magazine roadtest of a MK1 P5 states Avon 6.70-15 tubeless in the specification section. The workshop manuals for P4/P5 and P5B make reference to the fitment tubeless tyres and the P4 manual warns NOT to fit tubeless tyres to earlier car's tubed wheels. Tubeless tyres were the norm for all 1960s on cars even Minis
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 19, 2021 23:09:18 GMT
Radial tyres of high aspect ratio (basically with tall side walls) fitted to Rover P5 rims, primarily to maintain the correct gearing (the rolling radius of a tyre) have a higher squirm or distortion factor when both cornering and with general steering correction. Basically radial ply side walls are designed to flex to a greater degree than a tyre of conventional or bias ply design. Obviously if fitting radial tyres of lower aspect ratio than the tyres originally fitted by the Factory, steering response will improve. If fitted to all 4 wheels then the final gearing is reduced due to the lesser rolling ratio. On factory standard wheels, Low aspect ratio radial ply tyres are not generally the radial tyre of choice by most enthusiasts based esentially on 2 criteria. These are: * Rolling Radius * Aesthetics (The apearance of the wheel on the car) Having said the above though, my coupe (modified as it is) runs low aspect radials on the front wheels (standard 5" rostyles) fitted with tubes. I run the lower profile radials on the front because I prefer the more precise/sharper steering and braking response. sites.sema.org/ext-assets/councils/pdf/WTC-2011-05-Bias-vs-Radial-Tire-Wheel-Fitment.pdf Excerpt from the above PDF document.Summary - What you should take away from this explanation is that: • The tire industry makes radial and bias tires that can be mounted on the same rims. • Not all wheels and rims were designed for radial tires • Construction features of radial and bias tires make them bulge differently when deflected • The radial’s localized bulge puts more stress on the rim flange than a bias tire does • Rim fatigue and cracking can happen to any wheel from normal flexing, cyclic loading, and cornering • Radial stressing of the rim can accelerate metal fatigue and rim failure that is uncommon with bias tires. • Failures will usually occur where wheel materials change direction (e.g., flange to bead seat, bead seat to well, well or base to wheel center, etc.). • Evidence of cracking may be visually obvious or it may be indicated by air leakage. Recommendations1. Remember that not all rims are suitable for new technology radial tires. 2. A radial application checklist for vintage cars should include: - Are my wheels a pre-1975, primarily bias design? - Did my wheels come from the factory with radials? - If my rims are old, do I know how to look for cracking issues? - Should I replace my wheels with newer, radial compatible items? 3. If in doubt about your rims’ ability to endure radial tires….consider only bias tires 4. If radials are applied, check your wheels often for possible cracking 5. Use qualified technicians to mount, service, and inspect your wheels and tires
|
|
|
Post by MK IA Norway Viking on Nov 19, 2021 23:57:41 GMT
Just out of interest I've had a look at some P5 brochures to see if they made any reference. For info., my MK1 brochure (possibly 1959) states "easy clean wheels........ Tyres 6.70-15 tubeless. 710-15 optional etc". Unfortunately I can't copy it. Later brochures specify the same tyre size but don't make any reference to tubeless. A copy of the April 1961 Motorsport magazine roadtest of a MK1 P5 states Avon 6.70-15 tubeless in the specification section. Hi tonys, I have an MK IA and was annoyed with the wrong gearing offered by the radial ply 15 inch 185x75. The have a rollling circumference of 211 cm. The original crossply 670x15 which is the correct original dimension have a rolling circumference of 221 cm. I fitted crossply oversize 700x15 which have a rolling circumference of 233 cm. Result is that the speedometer finally shows true road speed as suggested by my GPS and the car is much quieter and relaxed at motorway speeds approx 100 kph. Crossply are what they are. I keep focus on my driving to catch any unexpected sideways movements and have to say that there is far less drama than I had anticipated. The ride quality on uneven road surface i.e. city-streets has been greatly improved. Optically, the oversize tires makes the car look good too; the wheel arch is filled BUT the car sits higher above ground which may take some getting used to ...
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 20, 2021 4:42:47 GMT
As intended by the designers of the original P5 (Saloon or Coupe) MK1A Norway Viking. The final gearing was never correct with radials. 😉👍
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Nov 20, 2021 6:55:01 GMT
The cornering particularly on wet roads and roundabouts was awful on the correct crossplies on both the P5B and the much heavier P5 Coupe auto. The understeer was the worst I have experienced and tyre squeal embarrassing on dry roads on bends with the Coupe at low speeds. I never felt confident driving normally X plies on the P4 P5 and P5B but np problem on the P2 with the narrow 17" X plies (with tubes!)
I did not like the wider 205 x 15s I tried on our P5B. One did blow out on the rear at 60 mph but stayed on the rim although that was on a straight.
In the end it is down to driving technique, road conditions and expectations
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 20, 2021 8:51:43 GMT
I agree Phil. 😉 👍
Back on Topic. More Electrical Woes Sorted but a few Niggling Issues still Remain.
Tony and I put in a couple of hours this morning. Tony used his multimeter to check the interior lighting of which there is none. The door switches haven't been fitted correctly nor was there any power to the interior light fittings front or rear? (Another WTF situation)
Neither of us want to delve under the headlining side pieces above the doors Mike, so we've opted not to go there and risk any potential damage to the cloth headliner or fixings.
The driving lights have been sorted and now operate in tandem when high beam is switched on via the floor pedal. This functional "work around" means the driving light switch is currently redundent, not that it worked, even after following your instructions. The wiring to it and the cigarette lighter (12 volt take-off) is currently inaccessible as the aircon evaporator is positioned directly on top of it, negating access to the 2 panel screws.
I haven't checked if power is available at the front cigarette lighter/12v power take off but will do this tomorrow wth a small 12 volt car trouble light that plugs directly into the lighter.
The under bonnet lights and switch is missing.
The bonnet hook latch was also refitted.
The car radio doesn't appear to work either. Was this the case before the panel shop started working on the car?
That's it really, apart from a road test once we get the power steering assemblies back and fitted to the car.
One last thing, neither Tony or I could locate the battery hold down assembly. The steel cover is there though.
So now, apart from small trivial stuff we just need Eddie to finish his work rebuilding the power steering system and the car should be quite functional. 😎 👍
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Nov 20, 2021 9:13:55 GMT
Interior light (and rear lights) problems if not the pillar switches can be caused by corroded bullets in the main to rear loom inside the N/s A post pushed well up behind the kick panel out of sight. Removing the head liner should not be necessary. They are fed by a purple cable from the Battery Control fuse which also feeds the clock and Cigar lighter
The radio should pick up from the Acc position on the ignition switch
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 20, 2021 10:33:18 GMT
Thanks for that Phil...I'd doubt that I'd have ever found those connectors, or even have gone looking for them. Seems like a really good job to delegate to Tony. 👍 😉
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 21, 2021 12:47:51 GMT
STOP PRESS
Good News....no issues with the front consul mounted cigarette lighter/12v power take. It actually works. 😉 👍
PS. On reflection the only switches that actually worked as designed when Tony and I started recommissioning Mike's saloon were: the ignition switch (which was loosely floating and unattached in its housing) and the heater fan switch.
|
|
|
Post by Mike’S-a-loon on Nov 21, 2021 14:15:14 GMT
Aah. Did you check the windscreen washer button?
|
|
boz
Rover Rookie
Posts: 12
|
Post by boz on Nov 21, 2021 14:36:24 GMT
Following the thread with interest, enigmas your doing a splendid job, boz
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 21, 2021 21:38:55 GMT
Aah. Did you check the windscreen washer button? You know something Mike, even one of the spade terminals on the washer bottle motor was ready to fall off...Tony repaired that, but neither of us as yet have checked to see if it actually works? 🤔. Will do 👍 I pleased you're finding the recommissioning blog of interest Boz. 😉
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 25, 2021 9:21:27 GMT
Fitting Contrasonic BushesThis morning Tony assisted me with fitting the rear leaf spring Y bushes, aka. "contrasonic bushes". And yes, they were probably the worst condition bushes I've ever seen on a P5 Rover. Once we had jacked up the car and supported it in a safe manner, the bush on the DS virtually fell apart. I'd even go as far as saying, that if this car was driven at speed on an undulating road, the rear portion of the spring on both sides would have literally become free of the vehicle. A Word of Warning. Please do not change the bushes unless you have a good understanding of the forces at play. By this I mean the rear leaf spring tension and the car's body when free of the unique Y shackle/contrasonic bush. The method I used. I prefer to do one side at a time and not have both wheels hanging free. We used a floor jack, a small mechanical screw jack and a sturdy steel bar of approx half a metre in length as a lever. Here are a few pix of the task and the components both new and old. Mike provided us with 2 new contrasonic bushes not individual "isolation bushes" currently being sold on the web for the task which took about 2 hrs. Tomorrow morning we do the passenger side. The new Contrasonic or Y Bush Note the complete middle section of the bush fell out when the 2 lower securing nuts were removed.
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 26, 2021 0:41:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnwp5bcoupe on Nov 26, 2021 9:14:51 GMT
When and why was the extra spring leaf added Vince? weak spring solution?
|
|
|
Post by Mike’S-a-loon on Nov 26, 2021 9:53:48 GMT
Hi John,
When I bought the car it was set up for towing. Presumably the extra leaf was part of that set up.
|
|
|
Post by enigmas on Nov 26, 2021 10:09:28 GMT
Hi John, I have no idea but I'm sure Mike will chime in on this question. I did note that the lowest or bottom shortest leaf in the spring pack has also been flipped over (it no longer adds to the spring packs tension.)
A personal note on fitting the contrasonic bushes. The rear of Mike's car sits lower than some P5Bs I've seen. It certainly isn't driving with it's rear end down by any means 😉. The car looks good in profile.
Given that rear spring packs settle over time and also that refurbished packs don't always have the precise camber of the original Factory sets, I've often wondered why the factory didn't allow for adjustment on the rear contrasonics by simply slotting the holes at the end of the rear leaf, rather than having 2 fixed holes.
Adjustments to remove unwanted shear loading on the bush when at rest could then have been easily accommodated. This could still be done quite easily by slotting the 2 holes through to the end of the leaf with a cutting disc fitted to an angle grinder. The holes could be lengthened in depth if also required to correct a shear situation.
I only state the above as I've heard that some of the 'new' repro bushes sheared after a short period of use. There is a disclaimer on the Wadhams "Instruction Installation Guide" that the warranty on the component is void if the bush is fitted in a shear condition. The precise terminology used is and I quote, "Please note the warranty is invalidated if these bushes are fitted using a 2 post ramp or fitted misaligned between the shackle and spring."
PS. A good lawyer would make mince meat of this vague condition as there is no shackle on the car but there is a fixed mounting point. But still, who wants to go there?
The quality of the repro contrasonic bush looks good so no complaints there.
The straight forward fix is to slot the mounting holes in the spring leaf and thus correct any misalignment. Otherwise it's an endless (expensive and labour intensive) tooling around exercise with various cambered spring sets, until the correct accommmodation is found.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Nottingham on Nov 26, 2021 10:17:30 GMT
Hi John, When I bought the car it was set up for towing. Presumably the extra leaf was part of that set up. The short leaf is meant to be flipped over presumably only comes into play on occasional excess deflection?
|
|