Gear change changes.

I’ll scribble up a drawing on paper; my working drawings are done on the Formica top of a work bench & sometimes even I can’t tell where one idea starts & the next finishes. There’s a circuit diagram I’m working on right there in the middle at the moment, so a picture of the bench top would only confuse. It would however confirm what some of you have suspected for a long time; I’m quite mad!
M

We have Mike Satur's bell crank kits on both of our F's, replaced the originals 10+ years ago. His kit is a definite improvement over the original bell crank, not only due to the rose joints but the shifting precision improved significantly.

As I commented in an earlier post, I wish I’d experimented with this earlier because I agree there is positive improvement.
The geometry of the original & the Satur upgrade must by necessity be the same as this is governed by the gizzards within the PG1.
Other than the rose joints the only upgrade would be one of rigidity & I suspect you would have to have formed a tight symbiotic relationship with the car for you to notice the difference between the AR fabrication & that by Mike Satur.
Not withstanding that I’m glad I did the experiment & that bitter pill of cost was sweetened somewhat by making the bit to do the mods myself.
I’ve to do some drawings for Delbout shortly, it had slipped my mind or what’s left of it.
M

I was looking on the web for information on the clutch brace & in my wanderings I found the “same” bell crank system on the MG Mania site at not much over twenty quid, as opposed to Satur at £44.
Satur claim the rose joints are unique to them, the difference might lay there, although I’m not sure how one single ended rose joint can differ from another once the ball is packed & sealed.
MG Mania no longer list the slave cylinder brace, or more accurately, I couldn’t find it on their website, whereas the MGOC have the same device listed.
This may be useful, it’s just a thought.
M

The rose joints in MS' kit are not unique to him, they are available from other sources. There was a name and part number on the rose joint and I was able to find them on the interweb.

It's £39 if you choose mild steel rather than stainless steel at £44. 

Mike is making a lot of parts from SS and anodised aluminium, which really increases the price, but with minimal, if any benefit.  For instance, the FCCKit is now made from SS and anodised aluminium, rather than zinc-coated mild steel, which adds at least £150 to the price, and then the added cost of the anodised aluminium parts.  The FCCKit on both of our Fs is zinc-coated mild steel, which is fit for purpose and much cheaper.

Stainless is challenging to work in if your tools aren’t sharp.  When turning I use sintered carbide tips & carbide saws,or slitting discs. 
Aluminium varies in quality, my Dad left me some very nice pieces, so thanks Dad. 
Right, if I do the right thing you should see pictures; the first (hopefully) shows the general arrangement of the brace. I slotted the angle bracket to give me a range of positions, also that 17mm bolt is a right bugger to get lose & to back it off rather than remove it altogether. 
One thing I omitted from the thumbnail, the angled end has had material removed to accommodate some pipe work. 
Ideally the rod ends should be a left hand & right hand pair & a matching threaded rod, but because I needed standard right hand for the prime job, that’s what was used here. 
The cylinder anchor point was an off cut of duralumin thick enough to withstand any strain placed upon it. Obviously the two main mounts were clearance the anchor point is tapped. 
the second drawing is a general sketch of the gear change rod end modifications & finally the assembly as it would be seen assembled on the bell crank. Water & grit are excluded by using “O”     rings retained under the outer 20mm washers, the turret is in to lift the rod end up to the appropriate hight, which is governed by the original design. 
let’s hope my skills with pictures is as slick as usual. 
m

A moderate success, it being up side down will help Cobber, we have to accommodate all members equally!

I didn't notice that the pix were upside down......I was probably too shocked that you'd managed to get the pix to display within the post without  the assistance of a moderator to notice the orientation of the pix........well done that man!

Here they are in the correct orientation:

 

 


 

Thanks all for the detail relating to the clutch slave brace, very interesting it does open up possible opportunities. Not sure why you felt it was necessary to use fine threads unless you felt it was unpredictable to lock the arrangement without it slipping.

Back to the theory though..
As OEM the line of force will be following the slave rod. Without watching it deflect I can’t see what bends and how. But with the device fitted  as shown in the drawings the resisting force is not in line with the axis of the slave push rod.. Any resisting force might tend to bend the slave rod I would have thought.

The drawing with the amended thread in the joint pertains to the gear change, the brace has the standard M6 thread. 
In an earlier post I referenced  Mk1 & a Mk3, the Mk2 had a better alignment but presented a real problem when assembling in the car. 
The thoughts of working through vector diagrams to assess excess stress didn’t occur until you mentioned off axis forces, however with my wife pumping the clutch there was no discernible deflection. 
The bracket, as originally designed was a bit of a “can do” item, mounting the engine to the subframe & dangling on a flimsy excrescence is the clutch slave cylinder & so hardly surprising it wasn’t resilient. 
The drawing is a general arrangement & as it says “not to scale”. 
We’re of out in the car this morning & the entire system feel tight & positive; it hasn’t taken long to become accustomed to the new feel, which is probably not surprising as it is similar to my Mazda & that’s not heard very often. 
The project was an interesting way to use up a couple of spare rose joints, whilst the engine cover was off. It might inspire others to have a look. 
There’s a leitmotif to all my posts & that is one of experimentation; as years advance I prefer to use my accrued skills, to keep the neurones clattering around & thus I take it out on the car. 
M

was it parallel to pushing rod before

Hi Ross, obviously I don’t know whether you have by following this shaggy dog story but it started with MGB281 having clutch problem we then wandered “all around the Wrekin” (that’s a reference for the Men of the Midlands) like Brew XI. 
the clutch brace was mentioned & as I was in the engine compartment, with bits about the place & time to spare, I made the device shown. 
Mk1 was chucked together, Mk3 is the final iteration & Mk2 would have been ideal, the two rods being parallel within degrees. 
I couldn’t assembly it because I couldn’t see what I was doing & to make that arrangement easier to assemble in the car it would have meant a redesign. 
There’s pipe work under there to be avoided & to a degree I was designing a system by feels, I didn’t want to fabricate the bell housing bracket, besides my son borrowed the gas & as there was no appreciable movement, once Mk3 was fitted or non that I could discern, I left it be & that is how it has remained. 
We’ve put some miles on her today with not an ounce of worry & so we will keep it. 
M