1967/1969 Bonnie Rebuild Desert Sled Project

[Rudie]

That is the diagram for podtronics running negative earth.

Seriously? That was drawn by someone who does not know the first thing about DC electrics.

DC is always from "negative", to "positive". Nothing to with "ground". For example:-

https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/dc.htm#.YtifO0XMLIW
... but there are many others online.

 

[suzook12]

Seriously? That was drawn by someone who does not know the first thing about DC electrics.

DC is always from "negative", to "positive". Nothing to with "ground". For example:-

https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/dc.htm#.YtifO0XMLIW
... but there are many others online.

I'm not sure what your point is?
2 things:
There is no argument about the flow direction of electrons. The diagram shows the podtronics reg/rec wired for use on a negative earth vehicle. The vast majority of vehicles on our roads today are negative earth. Ok, the ammeter symbol should have an A in it, not an arrow, and no arrow on the switch symbol...... It does illustrate how it should be wired in relation to the ignition switch....

That circuit would work! Personally, I don't like the lack of an electrical break between the reg/rec and the battery as it can run the battery down while not in use (certainly with nippon denso units) and also there is no fuse/fusible link....

So, as this depicted exactly what the ops problem was I am unsure why you have a problem with it? Rudimentary yes, but effective

 

[Rudie]

your point is?
There is no argument about the flow direction of electrons.

Your point taken. I looked at the various arrow heads and took them to indicate flow. You, I and many other readers would know that is not correct; otoh, if you read @Sundance's post (and I am reading his posts on A.N. Other forum, cannot link it here), he is confused.

The Podtronics written fitting instructions are also confusing, and they have also confused @Sundance; the person who now owns Podtronics said he would fix that years ago ... never done.

Why confuse less knowledgeable customers when minor changes would simplfy and clarify?

there is no fuse/fusible link.

+1. @Sundance has been advised on A.N. Other forum to fit one.

 

[suzook12]

Why confuse less knowledgeable customers when minor changes would simplfy and clarify?


+1. @Sundance has been advised on A.N. Other forum to fit one.

Exactly that. They would be better giving no information than bad information. At least then the customer would (hopefully) seek out a knowledgeable person to find out what they need to know

I am a great believer you can't have too many fuses and always recommend blade fuses over glass fuses as they can be bought easily.

 

[Sundance]

I confess, Sundance has been confused many times . . .

 

[Sundance]

Front brake squishy - So my rear brake is solid, but the front brake is squishy and just barely stops the front wheel when the brake lever is fully compressed. I put new shoes on the front and cleaned the drum with a wire sheet before assembling. I suppose I will be taking the wheel off to take a look in case I have assembled it improperly. I am wondering if any members have experience with this and if there is something simple I am missing. Thanks for any advice!

 

[grandpaul]

Front brake squishy - So my rear brake is solid, but the front brake is squishy and just barely stops the front wheel when the brake lever is fully compressed. I put new shoes on the front and cleaned the drum with a wire sheet before assembling. I suppose I will be taking the wheel off to take a look in case I have assembled it improperly. I am wondering if any members have experience with this and if there is something simple I am missing. Thanks for any advice!

Are you sure you got the shoes installed the right way around, and all brake linkages properly adjusted?

 

[Sundance]

Are you sure you got the shoes installed the right way around, and all brake linkages properly adjusted?

Well . . . I thought I had assembled it properly but now am not sure - obviously - so will be taking it apart. I did find it difficult to see the assembly of the brake in the manual as the orientation of some of the parts is difficult to make out - so that may be my problem.

 

[grandpaul]

Well . . . I thought I had assembled it properly but now am not sure - obviously - so will be taking it apart. I did find it difficult to see the assembly of the brake in the manual as the orientation of some of the parts is difficult to make out - so that may be my problem.

Each brake shoe has a leading and a trailing edge. They've got to be oriented properly. It's even more important on a twin-leading shoe brake.

 

[Rudie]

Each brake shoe has a leading and a trailing edge.

The Triumph 63-70 650 workshop manual, Section F6 - "Stripping And Reassembling The Brakes" describes clearly how to orient the shoes. Online images of current shoes show the described ends ("narrow end" and "radiused end").

 

[Sundance]

The Triumph 63-70 650 workshop manual, Section F6 - "Stripping And Reassembling The Brakes" describes clearly how to orient the shoes. Online images of current shoes show the described ends ("narrow end" and "radiused end").

OK, this seems pretty clear. I'll have to try this again. Thanks.

 

[Sundance]

So I took the front brake off and here is how it looks. First off it seems like it is assembled properly as is - unless any member can find some fault that I can’t see. Any suggestions are welcome. I do see that one of the brake shoes seems to be having only about 10% contact while the other looks like about 60% contact with the drum. So, is this where I need to shave down the brake shoe high points so they will have more contact? If the brake looks assembled properly then perhaps this is the fix? Thanks for taking a look.

 

[Sundance]

I followed the advice of forum members and sanded the high spots off of the brake shoes until it looked like I had contact on most of the shoes. I then put the wheel back together and on the bike. Now I am finding what may be a contributing problem, something I wondered about when I was initially concerned about my front brake being “squishy.” It seems my brake cable - which is 47.5 inches long - is too long by about 1 to 1 1/2 inches. I am not able to adjust it to get enough pull on the brake arm. Has anyone had this problem before? I would think I should try to find another cable of shorter length rather than try to shorten it myself? Thanks for any comments!

 

[speedrattle]

NO SYNTHETIC in classic Britbikes.

why not synthetic?

i wouldnt use it during break in, but have you had issues with it after?

 

[sikatri]

why not synthetic?

i wouldnt use it during break in, but have you had issues with it after?

There was no synthetic when those engines were designed. Different metal composition and different design in the days before synthetics. Let’s just say stick with what was the tech in the days something was designed and manufactured. Technology does not transfer in a universal manner.

 

[grandpaul]

Let’s just say stick with what was the tech in the days something was designed and manufactured.

I concur.

 

[speedrattle]

well, id have to disagree. early machines used non-detergent oils, not because that was best but because detergent oils hadnt been invented. and single-grade oils were specified because thats all there was, not because multi-grade oils were inferior.

so far as i know the only functional difference between conventional and synthetic oils is in lubricity. i have an old truck that gets 11.6mpg on conventional multigrade oil. on synthetic, it gets 13.6, a significant improvement.

the increased lubricity isnt an advantage if we re running in a motor honed with traditionally coarse 180-grit finishes, and is said to slow

break-in and possibly burnish the bores. but after tbe rings are bedded i dont know of any disadvantages to synthetic oils besides the cost.

im not talking about oils with polymer friction modifiers and how they dont work with a wet clutch-- thats taken care of by selecting oils without those adfitives. likewise for the zinc additives needed for flat tappets. but for the motor itself, absent the primary chaincase, i wouldnt hesitate to use a synthetic unless i knew more than i know now.

 

[Rudie]

early machines used non-detergent oils

Depends what is meant by "early", detergent additives in engine oils first appeared before World War 2.

so far as i know the only functional difference between conventional and synthetic oils is in lubricity

It also has a greater resistance to the effects of very high temperatures. Posts on A.N. Other forum indicate there is a place in Norton Commando cylinder heads that gets so hot it breaks down even modern conventional multigrade oils that pass over it; otoh, synthetics are not affected.

after tbe rings are bedded i dont know of any disadvantages to synthetic oils besides the cost.

I know of several Triumph/BSA triple owners who have used synthetics for years and high mileages without any mechanical disadvantages.

 

[Sundance]

Regarding oils and break in procedures, I’d appreciate any guidance on the proper way to break in my rebuilt engine. It is a 1967 Bonneville motor with a 750 kit. New barrel, pistons, cams, tappets, pushrods, all bearings and bushings (including cam bushings). Any suggestions on how to break it in most effectively? Thanks.

 

[sikatri]

“Synthetic oil technology has improved over the years, and most cars on the road today should be able to use either synthetic or regular oil, so long as the proper weight is used. In fact, some new cars require synthetic oil. However, one exception is with older vehicles, especially those with high mileage. The seals in those engines may not be able to handle the additives in synthetic oil. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible to switch to synthetic in an older car.”
https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/what-are-the-risks-of-switching-to-synthetic-oil-in-older-carsThere’s a lot of debate and mis information apparently. Fully synthetic is a uniform molecular structure and can be designed to work in different engines old and new. Synthetic is undoubtedly the future in oil, but I’m still cautious about it’s use in older engines. Especially ones using older tech and possibly old components especially if it’s not fully rebuilt. One issue is how well the new synthetic clean and if it has additives that are not compatible with older seals and so on. Sure if your comfortable with looking into every aspect of an older engine to confirm compatibility with a synthetic go for it. Sometimes a good thing may be too good and one might benefit from the older larger molecule oils. That said, using synthetic in older engines comes down to depends and maybe from what I’ve been able to briefly read. Also older means pre 1990 engines, ones after are probably more or less okay with synthetic oils. I wouldn’t bet that it is the best or only solution to a 1960’s or earlier classic. Best advice if your intending on using synthetic, find the oil you want to use then see how it’s made and what it contains. Then verify that those additives will work with the older seals and so on. I’m sure the initial issues with synthetics have largely been corrected by now. Part of my distrust is based on the earlier issues that came up and recommendations to avoid synthetic oils.