Fail-safe on steering rack mounts

norman m. macleod · Post by **norman m. macleod** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:07 pm

Hi All,
In the process of assembling the front end of my S1, suspension and steering and the like. Nothing to go on in the way of disassembly notes and photos, since it was in a thousand bits in several unmarked boxes crammed in the tub when I got it, so have to rely generally on original Jaguar Workshop and Spares Manuals (and the Forum, of course....!)....But I digress.......
Fitting the steering rack mounts, the design and intent of the fail-safe longer bolts/sleeves/special washers is fairly obvious, but why 2 on one side only? The Spares Manual is quite specific that these are fitted, quote, "on the RH side on a RHD car, and the LH side of a LHD car", unquote. Why not one on each side...? For that matter, why not fit 2 on each side, total 4....? Just to be sure, to be sure, as they say in Eire....
I'm sure Jaguar may well have had a perfectly good reason for doing it the way it is, but I just can't work it out.....
All the best to All on the Forum in 2014....
Best regards,
Norman

Post by **Heuer** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:33 pm

This has been discussed here: http://etypeuk.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... rack+mount - maybe of some help.

norman m. macleod · Post by **norman m. macleod** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:38 pm

Thanks David,
I'd seen the previous posts on the topic, as indicated. All understood, but my (somewhat academic, I suppose) question was not answered there. Which is, why are there only two on one side....? why not four (two on each side)? Couldn't have been cost, parts are pennies only..
Methinks I'll fit four, unless someone out there can enlighten/elucidate ......
Best regards,
Norman.

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:48 pm

Hi Norman, let me get this straight...

You don't understand why the factory did something, so you feel able to do it better by setting the rack up differently?

What's wrong with that picture? :-)

Looking at the parts and what they do (and the planes in which they operate) it is clear there ARE restraints on both sides already, they just aren't identical, because then it would be impossible to adjust the rack fixture for best feel as outlined in the manual.

If you're worried about ultimate strength and the factory spec because believe your mounts are going to fall apart in a way the factory did not anticipate, then you may as well go to solid mounts and sleep easy, with all the downsides they entail. If you want to enjoy the combination of handling and refinement that sets an E-type apart from other British cars of the period, then build it like it came out of the factory. Trust them.

You have probably not seen the plot of wishbone and damper angles versus damper travel for the inclined rear shock location either, or the bump-steer front geometry drawings, but you're not going to mess with your IRS or bend the steering arms I presume?

Pete

christopher storey · Post by **christopher storey** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:55 pm

I'm beginning to wonder why I read these boards. The question was a perfectly reasonable one, and it wasn't answered the first time round although David's link does indeed provide some good information . Personally. I have always found these parts rather difficult to install correctly so I welcome anyone who can shed light on the subject

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:19 pm

"I refer my learned friend to my previous answer."

I said as much as I know in the previous thread Chris, to which David posted a link. I was a bit curt on that occasion, which I am not terribly proud of, but all the info was given word for word when Andrew said he'd read it but didn't follow it. I'm a bit baffled to be honest why this continues to be problematic. I claim zero special insight, but the thing is at least somewhat obvious I think, when you look closely at the parts concerned?

It was Norman's reference to the question not having been answered which isn't correct. I answered it in that thread. I had hoped the smiley face might keep it light...

I can repeat it here I suppose. The steering wheel side controls excess movement side to side. The passenger side controls fore and aft. So there ARE restraints each side, just different styles, which is why the manuals speak of adjusting the passenger side but not the driver's side.

Ultimately, if a rack mount totally delaminated, there would be a fail-safe effect on both sides of the rack, but people seem to think it only happens on the drivers side where there are spacers, which is wrong. The extended bolts and lock nuts on the passenger side also act as restraints, but are adjustable. Changing the passenger side to the same style as the driver's side is unnecessary and would delete that adjustability and alter the control to little if any good effect.

Pete

norman m. macleod · Post by **norman m. macleod** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:21 pm

Thank you Christopher,
Indeed, I thought my query was a quite reasonable one, and it was premised on my statement, quote, "I am sure Jaguar may well have had a perfectly good reason for doing it the way it is, but I just can't work it out", unquote.......
Further, I must say I found the acerbic comments on the IRS geometry singularly unhelpful......
Best regards,
Norman

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:31 pm

Sorry Norman.

The comments were simply meant to illustrate a point, that's all. My first draft actually referred to the design of the timing side bushes of the 5TA/3TA, which I knew you'd appreciate as a fellow Triumph enthusiast, but I deleted that reference because I assumed very few others would have a clue.

My point was merely (complete with unsuccessful smiley, sigh!) that just because we don't understand something in detail is no reason to think it's either wrong, or that we can do better than the designers who clearly had reasons for doing what they did. Trust, I suppose you'd call it.

Likewise amongst each other here. If there are two ways to take something I've said and one of them is shitty but the other one is OK, then I meant the OK one. If I have to walk on eggshells I'll not bother.

Pete

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 pm

Ha!! Here we go again hey? Eggshells no but it is a friendly forum and extremely highly valued by all of us , so frankly if it is infuriating to continually answer the question , then either don't bother or answer it fully as you now have done! Whatever you say Peter, this is not clear, it is highly opaque which is why everyone including me keeps asking about it. It must provide you with hours of fun!

PeterCrespin · Post by **PeterCrespin** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:18 pm

andrewh wrote:...either don't bother or answer it fully as you now have done!

There's absolutely nothing by way of an explanation in this thread that I didn't give in the previous one Andrew/Chris/Norman, which is presumably why David cited it in the first place and is certainly why I was a bit mystified about why the thing is still not clear. But since there are now two citable threads in the archive, hopefully it will be a little clearer for others coming to the issue later.

I wonder, however, what a real engineer thinks of the setup and/or my view? I'm a complete amateur, albeit my view is based on observing the parts and seeing how they function. I could be barking up totally the wrong tree, although I don't think so.

Pete

andrewh · Post by **andrewh** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:52 am

Perhaps someone should ask Norman Dewis next time he is out and about as presumably if these fail safes also act as method of reducing rack movement then he would have had some involvement in their development?

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

Link:
BBcode:
HTML:
	Hide post links

The 'E' Type Forum

Fail-safe on steering rack mounts

#1 Fail-safe on steering rack mounts

#2

#3 Fail-Safe on steering rack mounts

#4

#5

#6

#7 Fail-safe on steering rack mounts

#8

#9

#10

#11