| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Orstin
United Kingdom
639 Posts |
 Posted - 05/12/2017 : 11:19:13
|
The source of many bodies that fail to capture the sublety of curvature of the M type body (particularly the boot lid area) I think can be traced back to a book published in (perhaps?) the 70s which purported to be a 'Build your own M Type body'. I've not seen it in detail but have seen a copy of the cover which displayed all the errors that we are talking about. It also includes a number of constructional details that are wildly inaccurate. Please be very wary if you should ever come across a copy and think your problems are solved...
Best of luck with the restoration.
So many dynamos |
 |
|
|
Mike the M
United Kingdom
481 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2017 : 14:45:22
|
Nigel I would be very pleased to hear from you with details of your car and any history that you have. I may be able to fill in some of the missing bits!
The ideas of putting plans on the website seem a good idea, and maybe should be pursued. 3D printing comes to mind in all of this, but I am over 30 years of age, and so is a bit of a mystery!!
Cheers
Mike Dalby |
|
|
|
NigelKK
United Kingdom
44 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2017 : 22:17:17
|
| One interesting point here is I've seen an old video of a black and white silent film taken in the 50's in the Talbot factory.At the point where they are building the bodies (only a quick flash over) the worker is shaving the high spots of the woodwork. I swear I saw some cut shaped timbers standing in the background. This lears me to think that someone cuts outthe timbers on a jig the someone else puts the jigsaw together. The point I'm making is the bodies must be very close to being exactly the same when mass produced by carbodies and the carted in crate to the MG factory. Sounds simple but is a nightmare. |
|
|
|
Onno
Netherlands
1059 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2017 : 22:36:26
|
Nigel you are correct.
That is why one would prefer a complete body to measure and take to pieces.
Non of the M types left the factory to exactly the same dimensions.
Though the faults described and visible in a lot of M types do not fall within the tolerances the originals had.
They are far greater.
I have been lucky to improve the boot line of an M type by taking more than 30mm out of the height at the rear.
The originals will have been built to within 5mm.
So when we have a complete set of correct drawings and molds it does not mather that each car differs slightly through finishing the body as the originals will have done as well
Onno "D" Könemann |
|
|
|
PreWarMG
Australia
437 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2017 : 10:36:00
|
If there are no objections, I am prepared to make a start on the "M-Type Frame Drawing Project".
I am thinking of producing each view such that it can be printed off on A3 paper & with easily read dimensions at that scale as a "PDF" file.
I am unsure how many drawings will eventuate, all depends of how much detail you want. We may even have dimensioned drawings of each individual timber piece.
I will post progress drawings on this forum for review & comment.
Once all the drawings have been reviewed & amended via feedback, the final copy will be sent to Nick for inclusion in the document downloads.
Any comment on this strategy would be appreciated before I get too advanced.
We are here for a good time, not a long time !. |
|
|
|
Malcolm Eades
United Kingdom
380 Posts |
Posted - 13/12/2017 : 09:11:14
|
Tony,
That looks like a very good plan. I see you have an M Type of your own to use as a basis to work from. Was it exported with its body? Which year was it made?
For me, one of the biggest challenges in making a body would be getting the joints right, so some detail of how parts fit together would be helpful. Thinking back to my woodwork classes at school it would probably be useful to have a cutting list too.
Thanks for your commitment to this task. It is much appreciated.
Malcolm
M Type
|
|
|
|
davies
United Kingdom
699 Posts |
Posted - 13/12/2017 : 10:20:36
|
| Nigel, if ever you are in Leicestershire and would like to inspect an M Type with all body timbers exposed then drop me a line -Rich |
|
|
|
PreWarMG
Australia
437 Posts |
Posted - 14/12/2017 : 09:41:31
|
Malcolm,
My M-Type will be of little use to the "body drawings" project. Along with M1523, M1524 was shipped from Abingdon to Australia as a "chassis only" export.
In the 20's & 30's in Australia there was an excise tax on cars imported with bodies to protect the local coach building industry. It is said the majority of Pre-War MG's came to Australia in this form and were bodied locally.
I also have a 1937 VA Tourer that came to Australia as a complete factory built car, and the import records show the duty paid for the factory body. Quite a hefty sum if I recall correctly.
I will take your suggestion of a cutting list too & add that to each drawing as a table of raw & finished dimensions - does this cover it ?.
We are here for a good time, not a long time !. |
Edited by - PreWarMG on 14/12/2017 09:46:58 |
|
|
|
PreWarMG
Australia
437 Posts |
Posted - 14/12/2017 : 09:44:42
|
For those interested, here is the import costing sheet for my VA & another into Australia.
We are here for a good time, not a long time !. |
|
|
|
PreWarMG
Australia
437 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2017 : 08:18:59
|
Ok, I have started on the drawing & need some reference dimensions if anyone can help.
I need the measurement of the chassis underside from the ground at the front and rear axle line.
I will measure mine, I need 5 other people to measure theirs, then we will average the dimension.
Thanks
We are here for a good time, not a long time !. |
|
|
|
davies
United Kingdom
699 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2017 : 10:12:04
|
| Not sure which dimensions you need - perhaps a diagram would help? -Rich |
|
|
|
PreWarMG
Australia
437 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2017 : 20:24:27
|
I am setting the "ride height" of the chassis above the ground - front and rear.
If the chassis sits too high or too low the body will not look right.
Just trying to get the fundamentals correct, for the dimensioning of the ash frame to come.
So I need the distance from the ground at each axle. I will get my car on the four post hoist later today & start measuring up the chassis.
Thanks
We are here for a good time, not a long time !. |
|
|
|
JohnE
United Kingdom
377 Posts |
Posted - 16/12/2017 : 21:36:04
|
I guessed that having what I thought were original '29 springs would establish the ride height Tony, but Blower gives the spring camber as nearly flat for the M. In my case they are 3 inches high, so would give you a false idea.
JohnE |
|
|
|
Keith Durston
United Kingdom
713 Posts |
Posted - 19/12/2017 : 12:53:08
|
While clearing up a bit this morning I discovered 2 original "Fuel Tank Shelves" and thought it would be interesting to compare them. They came originally off 2112 and 2451 so quite a time distance between their manufacture. The dimensions were exactly the same even down to a tiny corner notch on each side. The four holes for the vertical screws that hold it on the "cheeks" were so similar that when held up to the light I could see right through all of them. The screw holes for the tank were similar but not identical as were the ones to hold the fire wall on. I have attached a few photos.
I don't know what, if anything, this proves but seems to endorse Sam's observation that the original bodies he has studied appeared to be clones.
Keith
|
|
|
|
tonym
United Kingdom
655 Posts |
Posted - 19/12/2017 : 15:12:36
|
Whilst on the subject of original bits of M-type body frame - here is a query for you experts. On the shelf supporting the fuel tank there are two side supports for the bulkhead, each side of the tank. My supports are original pieces, and each has a hole. I an convinced that these holes are factory made - see pic. They are not in the same position vertically.
I have seen one other car with one of these [the other side was a replacement]
The question is - does anybody have any idea as to their purpose ?
Are there any other holes out there ?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
