Leg room

[mgcjag]

Hi all.....I have a S2 2/2 which has more leg room that the S2.....My problem is am I to short (5-10).......For my driving position I like to have my arms out fairly straight, I adjust the steering wheel fully in & have the seat in the mid range but really have to stretch the push the clutch peddle fully in (which it has to be to select 1st). Tried adjusting the pushrod on the slave cylinder but could not get enough adjustment on the rod so made up a longer one. Also bleed to eliminate air .This still didn't help. Should the peddle have to be fully depressed or should full clutch engage be achieved with partial pedal travel....Any ideas..Please don't say pull the seat forward as the steering wheel then sits on my legs....Steve

[Heuer]

Clutch should bite about half way down. Have you adjusted it?



If you have the hydrostatic slave cylinder, recognisable by the absence of a return spring, then adjustment is automatic.

[christopher storey]

Steve : this is a common problem, with the steering wheel hitting the top of the thigh. Are you aware that there is a rake adjustment as well as the axial one ? If you look just under the front edge of the fascia, you will find that the steering column is held by two nuts ( usually nyloc) each about 1 inch outboard of the column. These , when loosened, enable the column to slide vertically through a range of about 1.5 to 2 inches , and this usually makes all the difference . I would lay money on yours at present being at the lower limit of its travel

[PeterCrespin]

David's adjustment diagram and your rake adjust Chris do not apply to the OP's Series 2 AFAIK.

The S2 and S3 only had reach, although you could probably fiddle something with larger or thinner spacers at the column mount points under the bulkhead. I still have my s1 2+2 column assembly somewhere and i intend to use a shortened quick-detach bicycle wheel 'skewer' to employ the cam-action lever as a spannerless rake adjustment fastener.

A 15" copy of the 16" wheel is available from Moto Lita, as we know, to fit the original boss and horn push and that would give a tad more thigh room, or even a 14" but that one looks more obviously smaller. Still pretty though, and I loved type copy on my S3 OTS but of course that also helped to firm up the power steering, whereas on a manual steer car a 14" might get slightly heavy in town.

Pete

[mgcjag]

Thanks guys.......I have the slave cylynder with the return spring & have adjusted it as per the diagram......any one out there with a 2/2 & do you have to floor the clutch?....Steve

[PeterCrespin]

The 2+2 clutch is identical to any other, so is the leg room for that matter, which is where you came in. The length differences are all behind the front seat.

No you shouldn't have to totally floor the clutch.

Pete

[mgcjag]

Hi Pete......just measured my 2/2 against a friends S2 ots. with the seats at the same rake & in a position to give a matching arm length to the steering wheel. my 2/2 has an extra 2in from the front edge of the seat to the clutch pedel & 2in longer from the seat edge to the front floor/panel...I can manage the clutch in the ots but the extra length in the 2/2 is a stretch...next job will look at the master incase the piston is not fully returning....Steve

[PeterCrespin]

Can't comment on seating with respect to steering wheel or arm extension, since these are variable and adjustable.

Meaure from the steel front panel of the footwell (not a detachable foot board if present) to the front edge of the cross member under the seat or better yet the front seat fixture bolt. The cross member front edge is easier because you can do that with the seat in place and then report back. Maybe between the front panel and the front edge of the metal seat base (not the squidgy variable cushion edge). Make sure the seat is slid all the way forwards to the stops in both cases and the runners are using the same holes.

My guess is that although the 2+2 floor pan is flat and the seat mounts and tunnel are very different, the relatonship between the seat itself and the bulkhead / dash are the same across all six cylinder cars.

Interested and happy to be corrected if wrong. Even the height of the 2+2 seats is constant I think, despite the fact they are mounted well above floor level. It's the floor that drops (for rear passenger foot room) and not the seats that sit higher relative to the sill tops or trans tunnel.

What's your name by the way? Sorry I haven't spotted it. Feels weird writing to someone anonymous.

Pete

[Heuer]

Pete

The clue is in the original post:

"Please don't say pull the seat forward as the steering wheel then sits on my legs....Steve" :D

Steve

I am 5'8" and I have the 16" steering wheel adjusted to be as near the dash as possible. Seat back is in the most upright of the two possible positions and it is on the second or third notch from the rearmost position. I can easily reach all the pedals although my arms are most certainly not straight, probably 90 degrees at the elbows which is ideal for the arm rests. I will measure clutch pedal to cross member as Pete suggests and report back.

Edit: 21" from clutch pedal to cross member. 20" from clutch pedal to seat squab.

[PeterCrespin]

Pete

The clue is in the original post:

"Please don't say pull the seat forward as the steering wheel then sits on my legs....Steve" :D

Steve

Even worse. I missed the reference to clutch pedal distance. The statement that there was an extra 2 inches in one car versus another could be due to any number of things, including pedal variations.

Steve's implication seemed to be that 2+2 cars have an inherently different seat-to-pedal distance two inches longer. That's the element I am suspicious of, because my understanding is that the extra length was all in the doors and rear section, not the driver/dash/pedal relationship. But I would never use clutch pedal to seat distance as a check since both are too variable. Because of the different floor cross member / seat fixing on the 2+2 it's possible there IS a difference, so I'm interested to find out for future reference.

Trouble is, because of the different 2+2 floor structure and tunnel, taking a tape from the front panel of the footwell to the front edge of the cross member might not be conclusive for driving position as the 2+2 seat runners are fastened to that cross member and not to the floor behind like SWB cars. For driving position you have to go by the seat base, so if the distance between the front panel of the footwell to the front of the seat base in the fully forward postion is the same in a 2+2 then floor structure is irrelevant and I'm right with regards to the seat/wheel relationship. The columns are the same like-for-like Series 1 & 2.

If the front of seat fully forward to front of footwell distance is longer on a 2+2 that's good to know. Pity I sold my 66 2+2 tub and seats or I could do a direct check. Clutch pedal measurements would be much less reliable structurally, though fine for swapping ergonomic notes.

Of course, the Series 2 does have proper reclining seats not two-position squabs like the S1 4.2. This allows more rake and more arm length. The 2+2 having deeper floors also allows the legs to bend more, which translates perhaps into longer distance to pedals, on the principle of the hypotenuse of a triangle being longer than the adjacent side, even if the horizontal distance was identical?

[Heuer]

The SNG Barratt parts catalogue lists different part numbers for S1/2 FHC/OTS complete floors and S1/2 2+2 complete floors. Additionally front floor sections have different parts numbers which suggests they are not the same both fore and aft of the cross member.

[PeterCrespin]

The floors are utterly different. All long wheelbase E-types have flat floors cross-ribbed and some 4 cm (?) lower than the SWB cars. Look at any good photo of a LWB from the side and notice the extra depth all along the bottom seam of the sill and the absence of footwells.

The trans tunnels are different too (hence room for MOD box) so the crossmembers will be different to match. The rear outboard mounts for the front seats are on little folded sheet metal outriggers sprouting from the inner sill and the inboard mounts are on a raised section of floor along the trans tunnel. Actually both are at the original floor level AFAIK, it's just that the rest of it is lower.

It's the fore/aft relationship I was querying really.

[mgcjag]

Hi peter..My name is Steve Hook....as per your request I have re measured the seat to front footwell panel & as mentioned there is a 2in difference. I,m fortunate in that my friends S2 OTS is in the same garage as my S2 2/2...measurements were taken with the seats in the fully rear position & from the front seat frame....31in for the 2/2 & 29in for the OTS...the clutch pedel to panel being approx 9in on both cars.....whats interesting when both cars are viewed together is the seat location on the floor...with the OTS seat mounted low on the floor behind the xmember & the 2/2 raised approx 2in & mounted on top of the xmember(xmembers are in diff pos due to diff floor panels)...this extra height clearly seen viewed from the door opening with the 2/2 seat raised above the sill & the OTS seat level with the sill.......the extra height also results in 2in less distance between seat & steering wheel between the 2 cars...All interesting stuff & now realise why Im streaching that extra bit to change gear, somehow need to make the master cylinder respond quicker to the pedal, any one know of an adjustable pushrod? all the best Steve Hook

[PeterCrespin]

Thanks for that Steve - interesting stuff. If you've got the cars side by side I'd be interested in the numbers I was after - i.e. the distance from the front of the footwell to the front edge of seat frame with the seat fully forward, not fully back. Better still, the distance to the front seat runner fixing screw if you can see it (you'll need to put the seat fully back).

Sounds like it may be two inches longer on the LWB cars but it's also possible the extra measurement with the seat fully back just reflects different adjustment ranges. At least it seems you have ruled out the clutch pedal position as a variable.

I'm also still a bit dubious of the seat height thing - not with respect to the floor (the LWB floor is two inches lower and I believe the seat's at the same level so of course the seat is 2 inches further above the new low floor because it dropped down on 2+2s so passengers could get their feet under the front seats. I'm sure that raised hight above the floor could affect your leg reach a bit, but if the seat is the same hieght relative to the body and the clutch pedal it shouldn't, other than your foot resting a bit lower when not working the clutch.

Is it possible to measure or photograph the level of the front lower edge of the seat frame with respect to the sill top level? I'm tempted to say use the hinge pivot point relative to the upper sill level as that is easier, but I'm not sure if the seat pivot is the same height relative to the seat base on the Series 1 seats versus the fully-reclining Series 1.5,2 & 3 seats. The mechanism is certainly different so the pivot point might be.

The difference in thigh room under the steering wheel might be because of the loss of steering rake on S2 & S3 cars. But if the S1 wheel was set at max height close to the bulkhead, I'd expect it to be similar to the fixed columns of the later cars. Maybe not - maybe they chose to use the lower S1 position as the fixed position, which seems odd, unless they had to do so to fit the collapsible column in there?

Note too that seat cushions vary greatly in thickness and resilience. A fresh 'Suffolk Turkey' cushion is going to sit you a lot higher than a squishy high-mileage original foam seat, as some tall people have found to their cost after a restoration. I'm using nice seats bought from David Jones and they put my head right at the limit for fitting under the soft top. Good job I already have a bald spot at the back because if I didn't I soon would have....