The 'E' Type Forum

I recently purchased a set of two eared spinners from a very well known wheel supplier to replace the later type on my S2. Wanting to keep them looking good a Wheel Widget was acquired from Lionel which I must say is superb and duly used it to fit the spinners. As a final peace of mind on checking them after a drive I used my lead mallet to check tightness and was shocked that the lead bruised and marked the chrome ear of one spinner. I am therefore suspicious and disappointed that the chroming of these spinners are not up to a hardness standard as many of the spinners I have encountered over many years of cars fitted with wires. I have complained to the supplier but after a couple of weeks I have not had a response. Thoughts?

Is there a hardness standard of the chrome....or is the lead in your hammer too hard?....either way im not supprised...bash some chrome with a lead hammer and something has to give.....use a wood spinner protector...or better still get some original spinners and have them rechromed....its not like weve not mentioned before that repros arnt very good......Steve

I carry a wood 4x4 about 3’ long, trimmed like a beefy cricket bat. I place it on the ear and hit the wood with the mallet. Works like a champ, no marks.

You may be right Steve, getting a set of originals is the way to go. I’ve always been an advocate for owners to use lead mallets over copper(due to age hardening). I have had motor cycle forks hard chromed not like some of this poor chroming today which marks as if it made of aluminium.
Every day is a school day!

If you go down the rechroming originals route, make sure the originals you choose fit correctly before chroming. Due to the lead-time for refurbishment, I left my originals on the car and got two sets of AB1466/67 spinners and chose the best-looking 4 to be beautifully re-chromed and re-engraved. However, when I fitted them, at least two of them wouldn’t tighten properly due to a problem with the threads. So I’m still running with the old set!

Something is definitely wrong there. I smack the crap out of all of mine with a lead hammer and absolutely no marks on any. The hammer however looks like it has been extensively chewed by Cerberus.

Send them back.

Thats why i questioned the hammer....a genuine lead one is very soft and will deform on the first whack. ....Steve

A Number 3 Thor Buffalo Hide Hammer for me.
In all the 20 years I have had the car, a few whacks from nearly 3lbs of this hammer does the trick - with no chance of damage !
Cheers,
Dave

abowie wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:09 pm

Something is definitely wrong there. I smack the crap out of all of mine with a lead hammer and absolutely no marks on any. The hammer however looks like it has been extensively chewed by Cerberus.

Agree totally. I cannot see how a mallet that gets marked if I dig in a thumbnail can possibly mark a spinner that certainly doesn’t.

The decorative chrome layer* is super thin and has no structural integrity against hammer blows beyond the strength afforded by the manganese bronze substrate. Other than a hidden casting flaw just below the surface at the point of contact (assuming the spinner blanks weren’t forged) I cannot believe a true soft lead mallet could ever put flats on a spinner. That being the case, something is not what it appears…

*NB a very different process from centreless ground hard chroming of hydraulic rams and fork legs etc.

The lead mallet that I have used for many a year is soft lead and never marked spinners on the past till now on these new set. I have contacted the supplier again asking for a response as it has been two weeks and have been told that my email with att. photographs have been forwarded to another department to look into the matter. We shall wait to see what transpires. I’m not holding my breath!

That looks like grit got into the face of the mallet. At least the pock marks do. Hard to see if there are wavy deformities too, which could be polishing error. How many were affected?

The pock mark was originally there and probably a finishing defect. I have only used the lead mallet on this spinner as now I am reluctant to use it on the rest.

Hi Paul....i would still question your mallet. ....im assumeing that you had standard S2 federal type previously that needed the adaptor tool......so you never bashed 2 ear spinners previously with you mallet.......instead you were hitting the adaptor.....iv seen plenty of mallets on S2 that look like lead but are actually a harder material for hitting the federal spinner adaptor.....A proper lead mallet you should be able to mark with a fingure nail as Peter mentioned above.....Steve

Thanks all for you comments and it’s good to bounce off each other. The Thor lead mallet I use can be marked with my thumbnail and the faces are grit free and only used for ear spinners. With an engineering background and having been in the engineering supply trade for the last 40 odd years, I have amassed every every type of tool, quality hammers or mallets available, I am in the fortunate position to keep specific types for specific purposes. If it is the case that the new spinners are inferior then I will only use the widget with a 1m power bar. I’ll keep you posted.

I use the Thor mallet with replaceable plastic (nylon?) heads. It's very heavy and leaves no marks on my repro spinners which I have to wallop to tighten the rear wheels sufficiently!

I've just taken a set of originals to Derby Plating for restoration. Unfortunately, I have not tried them on my car first as Richard recommends

I had mine rechromed at Derby plating
They dressed out the scratches and dings and the result was astonishing!
I had to work on the thread on one spinner to get it to run on smoothly but otherwise they fit well
It’s nice being able to see the original lettering and long slim arrow that is a give away when reproduction are used on a lot of the fancy company’s rebuilds!
(My wife was having fun at Shelsley Walsh Etype 60, checking out which rebuilds we’re using the original spinners!)….very few
Robbie

Jerry,

What is the Thor model number of the nylon faced hammer, and or what weight should I look for?

Thanks

Layne

It’s a good suggestion of Jerry to use a nylon face mallet. From now on I will do the same and use a Thor 716 which has 50mm face and a weight of 1230g. Especially if the repro spinners aren’t up to original chrome specs which seems to be the case.

Sounds good. How does that weight compare to what i think is the orig thor with copper and hide faces?

A size 2 Thor copper/hide weighs 1070g and a Thor size3 weighs in at 1600g. The size 2 is the more common.
Worth having a look on the Thorex website.
To be pedantic and correct they are copper/hide hammers not mallets which is usually the description.
https://www.thorhammer.com/