TR Spares Development Fund - Website launch

[TR5tar]

Hello all, 

I hope everyone here is keeping well. 

As some here will already know, there’s an organisation called the “TR SDF”, which helps keep Triumph TRs and derivatives such as Italia, Peerless, and Swallow Doretti on the road by funding projects to remanufacture unavailable parts for these cars. It’s a non-trading, not for profit organisation. Yesterday, the TR SDF launched its website and Facebook group. The TR SDF aims to serve the entire TR community (regardless of country, TR model, or club affiliation) and works independently of any other organisation.

If you’d like to find out more, please visit www.trsdf.uk

And if you are on FB, please see ... https://www.facebook.com/groups/481394215834908 

Best wishes, 

Darren

[Rod1883]

Well done Darren and all involved.

Bob LeBrocq and I made similar comments on the TRR forum -  as SDF members we were a bit confused about the Members and Committee tabs on the new website (I don't have or do Facebook). Perhaps something could pop up, or a summary page open on those tabs to explain what they are and perhaps why they cannot be accessed, rather than just ask for a password? Ian C posted that they were closed to all other than the committee due to Data Protection issues.

Rod

Edited October 3, 2020 by Rod1883

[TR5tar]

Thanks Rod. 

We are tweaking the site at the moment and probably will be for sometime. Initially the thought was to have the "Members" page for TR SDF members only and when complete send everyone the password. However, thinking about it more, it makes more sense just to have a "News" page instead of one specifically for members. In that way, everyone can see what the TR SDF is doing and it makes the site more dynamic. We need to make clear that it's an organisation that aims to help the entire TR community, so the more we can spread the name and links the better. 

I can see that the Committee tab is confusing, as it might suggest that the page contains details of Committee members. Such a list appears on the About the TR SDF page. The Committee page is intended for private committee discussions and will only be for committee members. I'll have a think about the sort of popup explanation you mentioned, although that might be beyond my skills. What we probably will do is give the tab a different name in the hope of making it less confusing. In fact, we'll probably remove the link completely. 

It's a bit of a work in progress at the moment, so feedback is helpful. Let me know if you spot anything else that you are unsure of. 

Best wishes, 

Darren

  

[TR5tar]

Just to follow up Rod. Following your feedback, we have now made some changes to the site that hopefully improves it. 

Best wishes, 

Darren

P.S. I hope you are keeping well. 

[PeterC]

Good work Darren, Ian (s) and co.

Moss USA must have a pile of cast ali 6-pot inlet manifolds for the Eaton blower that they cant sell for want of the Holley carbs they had tuned to suit.

With a 2" SU we'd have a Vespertini replica !!

Peter

 

[TR5tar]

Thanks Peter. I'm keen to support the TR SDF in any way I can, especially as the great work it has carried out to date seems to have gone largely under the radar for far too long. 

Best wishes, 

Darren

P.S. I hope you are keeping well and safe Peter. I'm still taking the D3 and so far I've avoided anything nasty. 

 

[Rod1883]

Thanks Darren.

Yes we are well thankyou, and are about to start our higher level D3 supplements again after trying to soak up as much of the natural stuff over the Summer as possible.

Hope you and yours are all well too.

Rod

[PeterC]

4 hours ago, TR5tar said:

Thanks Peter. I'm keen to support the TR SDF in any way I can, especially as the great work it has carried out to date seems to have gone largely under the radar for far too long. 

Best wishes, 

Darren

P.S. I hope you are keeping well and safe Peter. I'm still taking the D3 and so far I've avoided anything nasty. 

 

Thanks Darren, yes PD is reasonably stable, the experiment continues. D3 should work, but best avoid catching the virus if you can. Peter

[RichardB]

Great stuff. Interesting to see how many alloy TR4 heads have been sold, makes one wonder how big a market would there be for an alloy TR5/250/6 head.

[RogerH]

11 hours ago, RichardBaines said:

Great stuff. Interesting to see how many alloy TR4 heads have been sold, makes one wonder how big a market would there be for an alloy TR5/250/6 head.

Hi Richard,

the TR4 style head was remade because 2nd hand items were getting scarce and reports of cracks were increasing. It took quite a while to complete the project.

Both Steel and Ali were considered as worth doing. I understand the racing boys prefer the steel (possibly it's the rules). I have a steel one fitted and it is working well.

One of the first Ali heads was trial fitted to a 4A that has dome many many miles and is still the best part on the car.

There is no shortage of TR6 steel heads and nobody has asked for Ali 6 pot heads.

The philosophy of the SDF is to keep the marque on the road. As there are adequate steel heads I would imagine an Ali option is a non starter.

 

Roger

[RichardB]

Thanks Roger, that makes a lot of sense.

I got wondering as some classics seem to have enough of a market to justify companies investing in alloy heads, recently I'd seen Webcon do one for the Austin Healey: https://www.webcon.co.uk/Downloads/2009-Austin Healey Heads.pdf . Suppose this is one of the few benefits in cars becoming more valuable over time, as companies are more prepared to invest in expensive performance parts.

 I can imagine it's quite a boon being able to take weight off an MGC with that boat anchor of an engine...

[Mark]

Seem to remember reading somewhere that there was some development on a Triumph straight six alloy head. Years ago now, so obviously didn't progress. 

[Nick Jones]

Canleys did some work on an alloy 6 pot head. Possibly meant to be a joint venture with others. Apparently castings were produced, but I don’t think it ever got as far as a working prototype. Non-trivial development costs one suspects.  
May come one day. 6 pot heads getting harder to find in good condition, especially the thinner 2L ones.

[JohnD]

Rather like the "Tornado" locomotive project, this falls between two stools.     Tornado was a magnificant idea, that raised £3million to build a truly  'modern' steam locomotive.    In fact, and despite input from leading steam engineers around the world, who proposed a thoroughly modern internal design with an original outward appearance, what was built was a copy of a Peppercorn class loco, last built in 1949.   It is a reproduction, a replica, of a locomotive.

If we are to manufacture new major components, then we should design them to improve the breed and not merely to prolong its already extended life.    I would propose that any new run of cylinderheads should be designed to be cross-flow, as all engines are today, for improved gas flow, combustion and economy.      If that design were to include modern ideas to improve economy and emissions that would reinforce us against future challenge against our continuing to use internal combustion cars.

Keeping the pushrods make that design difficult, when changing to an overhead camshaft would be too much, a completely new engine!   If anyone  would like to cooperate in such a project, I'd be glad to do so.

John

[RogerH]

HI John,

there was a serious side to the Tornado design. When BR shut down they gave little thought about the future.

ALL the 'Peppercorn- A1's - were scrapped.  The preservation arena did not have enough (and still not) engines and a group of enthusiasts got together and started the project.

Why would an enthusiast of 'old' steam want to be a new nuclear loco.

There are now 'new'  Granges, County's, Saint's,  These are using many old interchangeable GWR  parts rescued from Dai's grave yard.

There is also the NEW build P2 - this is a big bugger and will be a beauty.

The enthusiasts behind Tornado at least allowed new design techniques (3D CAD etc etc) and build technology.

Not sure but it may have a fully welded boiler. Built in Germany and has had a few teething problems.

 

Tornado cost apprx £3M to build as new.  Flying Scots man cost £10M to be refurbished.

Roger

 

 

 

[GT6Steve]

5 hours ago, Nick Jones said:

Canleys did some work on an alloy 6 pot head. Possibly meant to be a joint venture with others. Apparently castings were produced, but I don’t think it ever got as far as a working prototype. Non-trivial development costs one suspects.  
May come one day. 6 pot heads getting harder to find in good condition, especially the thinner 2L ones.

As I recall he had one running but had some cracking problems? I was slated to get one for testing but it didn'y grt past the first one.  I'm pretty sure he had the one running however....

[Nick Jones]

Ok, that’s interesting Steve. I didn’t know that. Can certainly see that cracking could be an issue. Alloy choice, heat treatments and basic design all play a part. Should surely have been possible to overcome as there are plenty of similar things out there and working, but all development costs adding up.

Going back to John’s point about improving the breed, ISTR that the original concept was that the weight reduction was improvement enough, but some of the potential contributors wanted more and not all wanted the same, leading to a parting of ways and ultimately the loss of the project. Bottom line..... keep it realistic. Minor chamber size/shape variations and port shape changes is one thing........ Cross flow head....? Yeah.... the unintended consequences of that stack up real fast......

[Escadrille Ecosse]

2 hours ago, Nick Jones said:

Bottom line..... keep it realistic. Minor chamber size/shape variations and port shape changes is one thing........ Cross flow head....? Yeah.... the unintended consequences of that stack up real fast......

And rapidly 99% of the market disappears because either people can't or won't afford the cost of all the other bit's needed to finish the job or recognise that if they do it will be even more difficult/expensive to maintain as replacement bit will be unobtainable.

I would very much like an alloy head for the Spitfire but would not be interested in a crossflow under any circumstances.

[JohnD]

Why ever not, if - IF - it worked?

 

[Escadrille Ecosse]

Because I wouldn't know if it would work until I did it which would be both long and expensive.

Because I would be forced into making a one off, exhaust manifold, one off front exhaust section.

Unless I made a one off gearbox bellhousing and engine back plate to put the starter motor on the RHS I would need to put the induction on the LHS. Which means new everything.

Either way sorting out the oil filter would be a problem, either under the induction or worse under the exhaust. This would also entail modifying the oil pressure switch/oil pressure gauge takeoff.

OHC is a non-starter for complexity.

Assuming OHV then need a complete redesign and manufacture of the rocker gear to cope with the altered spacing.

Go too far down that road and you're going to have to make mods to the block to get the followers to suit.

I assume you would try and copy an existing chamber design. But regardless you will need to find suitable valves to suit the new design.

Although unless you go for a hemi type combustion chamber then the benefits of crossflow are more theoretical than significant.

You are also compelling people to use a fully distributorless system. So mods to the oil pump drive are necessary.

This will all need to be worked out, designed, built and tested. And if it's planned to make more than one head and sell it to people that testing is going to need to be pretty good. And it is pretty much a shoe in that the first iteration will have a problem. 

Even if you do get it all to work, and then find that it actually is meaningfully better (no guarantee) what you have is not really a Triumph engine any more. It's now a very expensive and quite probably slightly less robust and less powerful version of an aluminium cross flow engine (designed by people who really know what they are doing and have the budget to support them) that you can pick up cheaply in a scrappy.

The Mini boys did it back in the day, throwing LOTS of time and cash at it because the gearbox in sump and racing regs made it the only option.

That driver and that market doesn't exist for Triumph engined cars on the 2020s. I doubt it would for Minis either if they hadn't already done it when they were raced seriously 40 years ago.

Triumph actually did all this back in the day. We call it the 1850/2L slant four. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Escadrille Ecosse
spelling

[Nick Jones]

1 hour ago, JohnD said:

Why ever not, if - IF - it worked?

 

Well.... it would be rather like putting an engine in from a completely different vehicle, with many of the difficulties that brings, but perhaps not with all the same benefits.  The bottom end of the engine remains the same..... and not with huge reserves of strength.

I do get the principle though John, I have been know to take the odd flyer - though always calculated.  But as Colin rightly points out, if you are trying to make a commercial success of such a venture, it needs to be straightforward and reasonably priced or have startlingly good, proven results, or preferably a combination of all.

As to the 6 pot alloy head - it is actually possible to get good power out of the standard design (probably as much as the bottom end can reliably handle at least) and a 15kg weight saving is quite significant that far forward, though not perhaps enough to be spending big bucks on unless you were a dedicated racer or had to buy a head anyway..

[Escadrille Ecosse]

John, the weight reduction is a big attraction for me anyway, especially for the six but even for the four cylinder and would be very tempting.

I remember when I was getting new bronze inserts put into the head from the Spitfire, the lad had the head from an Imp in the workshop.

I could pick it up between two fingers

[mpbarrett]

I am curious apart from the significant weight reduction is there any other reason  for going with an ali head if the head design stays the same?

mike

[Escadrille Ecosse]

1 hour ago, mpbarrett said:

I am curious apart from the significant weight reduction is there any other reason  for going with an ali head if the head design stays the same?

mike

For limited run casting it is probably easier/cheaper to get done and if you are having to get a run of specials then why not make them lightweight specials ans perhaps sell a few more to racing guys who wouldn't otherwise have bothered.

In the days of leaded petrol there would have been more of an argument to stay with a steel casting as they didn't need valve seat inserts I suppose.

[RichardB]

Yeh cross-flow would be an interesting experiment but perhaps a bridge too far for originality and simplicity of modification.

I think perceptions in modifying old cars can be a bit irrational, for some reason swapping an engine part out for alloy instead of cast iron seems much more "original" and "correct" to people than changing one cast iron part for another of a different design.

But that's how it is and I guess I fall into that camp as well. My mods have been intended to make the car 'more' of what it is, but not change the fundamentals. Original engine, gearbox, drivetrain etc, but with porting, cam change, and the most dramatic - EFI. I'd swap a part out for an alloy one without thinking, but not sure I'd go for a head with a different design as it's arguably becoming a different engine. Again - just an opinion, not necessarily a logical/rational one.