Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Torqueing a wobble extension

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lark Parker
    replied
    I agree that handbook is good and it's hardly worth the price just to buy the manual for the torque specs.
    Here's another http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billav...lts_signed.pdf
    with a short course in bolts, nuts and washers.
    Use one of the suggested tables and just choose the bolt rating (most are grade 5), the diameter, and the thread(coarse or fine).
    Such tables are universal and what Studebaker probably used to build with and write the shop manual.
    For what its worth I used the 1955 Shop Manual since my 39 Manual is at the President's storage site.
    The 1955 manual is excellent and better than some of the later shop manuals. My opinion only.
    Since I was dealing with studs and not bolts (with the grade marking) I would have assumed grade 5 had I been using a general table.

    Leave a comment:


  • 63 R2 Hawk
    replied
    If all else fails, use common sense and any one of several torque table specs such as found in Machinery's Handbook or http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/torque3.htm.

    Leave a comment:


  • nvonada
    replied
    Lark,
    What year is your manual? I might pick one up just for that torque table. The torque wrench may date to 1918 but there is not a single torque value anywhere in my 1941 manual.

    Nathan

    Leave a comment:


  • Lark Parker
    replied
    Joe,
    No harm -- no foul.
    I delete about half of my responses on this forum because the
    computer does not relate sarcasm or even humor very well.
    Last edited by Lark Parker; 12-04-2012, 01:55 PM. Reason: I like editing.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeHall
    replied
    Oops. Lark, I now see you were serious in the above. Hopefully, you did not take seriously, anything I said above. It was meant to be tongue in cheek. For all except head bolts, flywheel bolts, and the like, I just tighten till it feels about right. But I know that does not address your question.

    Joe

    Leave a comment:


  • Lark Parker
    replied
    Thanks Gord for the precise help. I was uncomfortable with my way of deduction.
    I had also thought about the extreme of 90 being an isometric exercise. But I got sloppy in thinking when I remembered the sine of 90 was 1.000 so I used 10 degrees off 90 for the sine function. Something about the calculation kept nagging at me.
    Although using 80 on a sine function probably yields the same numerical answer as 10 on the cosine.
    Your thinking is correct, mine *lacks precision. (*Euphemism for I was wrong.)

    If you use a China built universal joint, the 90 exercise does not hold in the real world as some guys can break one.

    I was also lacking in precision about the torque wrench being invented before the last century. My computer says it was invented in 1918.
    Last edited by Lark Parker; 12-04-2012, 01:33 PM. Reason: I like editing

    Leave a comment:


  • gordr
    replied
    FWIW, sometimes thought problems like this can be resolved by thinking of the extreme case. Ask yourself, "how much torque would I put on the fastener if the wobble extension, was set at 90 degrees to the axis of the fastener?" (say you took a socket and slotted one side of the drive recess to permit the extension to go that far) In that instance, it's pretty easy to see that the answer would be zero. All the force would be directed at trying to move the fastener sideways. A great way to get isometric exercise, but otherwise pointless.

    Let's see now. We have two endpoints. Extension right in line with fastener: 100% torque transfer. Extension at 90 degrees to fastener, 0% torque transfer. (looks at book of trig tables) Well, looky here! This property of angles, called cosine, has the same end points. Angle zero degrees, cos 0 = 1.0 Angle 90 degrees, cos 90 = 0. So the torque through a wobble extension (or U-joint) is equal to the applied torque X the cosine of the off-axis angle. If you have one of those little U-joint adaptors in your socket set, try it at 90 degrees; it won't turn the nut.

    Since the cosine of 15 degrees is 0.965...., effectively at that small angle, your torque will probably be within spec. Torque to the high end of the quoted range if it makes you feel happy.

    Leave a comment:


  • WCP
    replied
    I believe that brass nuts were factory issue for exhaust studs. The '63 Hawk (Canadian built) that I bought new in '63, had them. These nuts are approx. double length and of course national fine thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Son O Lark
    replied
    As to the swallow comments, I don't think Lark Parker has seen Monty Python And The Holy Grail.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lark Parker
    replied
    Originally posted by JoeHall View Post
    Forget torque, and other complicated terms. I highly recommend you not try such mechanical taskings yourself. Take the car to an authorized Studebaker repair facility and get it done right. You are probably using the wrong parts anyway. If you insist on doing it yourself, there are some on this NG who will help you research and insure you are at least using the correctly deigned parts with the right part numbers. For example, those brass nuts. Not sure if they are authorized or not. If Stude Corp did not think of it 50 years ago, its probably still not a good idea today.
    I think I should use more caution about trying for research or help from the NG.

    In 1952 my Dad's Stude truck had brass nuts on the exhaust and as a fourteen year old year old I remember him telling a mechanic that he wanted the same when he had the head pipe replaced. I was under the impression that they were original equipment as he had just bought the truck new about two years before.
    Part of my apprehension about torqueing the manifold, without due thought, was because I didn't know how much the the brass nuts would take without stripping. It's probably more than the torque spec but I don't have one to experiment with on the bench.

    To the rest of the wiseazzes, I can only suggest that you are never too old to learn.
    Perhaps that's because I didn't explain the concept of the torque wrench which has been around before the last century (and used incorrectly ever since).
    A good seminar by Bowman Fasteners would help a lot of people here. Maybe that could be a demo at the Interbnational Meet sometime.
    See the uselessness of lock washers: http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billav...lts_signed.pdf

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (SELF CENSORED)
    Last edited by Lark Parker; 12-04-2012, 09:40 AM. Reason: I like editing

    Leave a comment:


  • WCP
    replied
    Just use two wobbles, then theoretically, your torque loss will be zero.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michidan
    replied
    Are you suggesting a 5 oz swallow can carry a 6 pound torque wrench?

    Leave a comment:


  • Son O Lark
    replied
    The air speed of the swallows is not important, it is of more importance to the issue of how they grip the wrench.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeHall
    replied
    Forget torque, and other complicated terms. I highly recommend you not try such mechanical taskings yourself. Take the car to an authorized Studebaker repair facility and get it done right. You are probably using the wrong parts anyway. If you insist on doing it yourself, there are some on this NG who will help you research and insure you are at least using the correctly deigned parts with the right part numbers. For example, those brass nuts. Not sure if they are authorized or not. If Stude Corp did not think of it 50 years ago, its probably still not a good idea today.

    Leave a comment:


  • mbstude
    replied
    Regarding the Swallows, are we talking about the African or European variety?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X