Early Triumph roadster - questions

[mylittletony]

Hi everyone,

I paid a visit to my school earlier as they run a motor club. They've been donated an early roadster, but know very little - I'm hoping someone here can help!

The best I can do for id at the moment is the last few digits of the chassis number, 04 06 80 which I assume is the build date? It's a W reg, vitesse engine and triumph front and rear axles.

It's in a bad way and has been bodged within an inch of it's life, thankfully it's getting stripped down to the chassis and getting a fresh start

Is there an online build manual available? There is a gt6/vitesse Haynes for starters...

My first question is whether the engine should be in straight?! This one points to the passenger side at the front....

Have a few pics as a thank you for reading!







Many thanks,

Tony

[Robert in Cumbria]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Well you may find the Steering rack isn't straight across the chassis either,(mine isn't) so why would the engine be! Probably to give more room for the steering column, drivers feet and pedals.

Many thanks for posting the last image, it's exactly the aspect of a Triumph suspended front end that I need to help me assemble the nose cone.

What an interesting project.

The build manual I have seen for the Mk.1 (Triumph) is very basic. Nothing a little common sense couldn't figure out, and I doubt much would be applicable in this case, I think the early ones were all pretty individual.

[cameronfurnival]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

The build manuals are available quite easily and Im sure someone near you probably has a paper copy they can let you have, I think there may be a version on line somewhere too (tiyen's site?). http://tiyen.com/moc/marlin_roadster_mk1_manual.pdf and http://tiyen.com/moc/marlin_roadster_mk2_manual.pdf
My feeling over the engine is that it should be as straight as a die! The maximum deflection of the propshaft can only be 5 degrees before the vibrations will shake your teeth out. Of course, its likely there will be an offset but as long as the faces of the prop flanges are parallel (+/- 5 deg) it will be fine.

[b_caswell]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Hi Tony, I have also PM you about your chassis number and registration.

We seem to have lost the pictures.

But the six in a Triumph based car does sit off set the front centre of the crank is about 3 inches to the nearside of the centre line and the engine is angled at about 2 degrees. By the time you get to the tail of the gearbox its in the middle. It looks worse because the rocker cover doesnt sit central on the engine. Dont hesitate to ask for more info.

The reason Roberts steering rack is cock eyed is down to the original builder as they were left to drill the holes for its mounting.

[Robert in Cumbria]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Really?

I was putting it down to the offset body of the rack and the three inch extension on the n/s steering link. The rack is 18mm further back at the n/s. I thought it was an attempt to correct the Ackerman angle errors caused by unequal lengths of steering tie rods.

I have just had a look at the holes and they don't look far out but there must be an error I guess. I plan to make the rack solid with aluminium mounts because the rubber mounts are too sloppy, the rack is sliding sideways and loose.

Triumph Rack alignment.jpg

[b_caswell]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Not sure how the rack being angled would effect the Ackerman but I found that by packing the rack up a bit 1/8 inch reduced the bump steer.

one thing to note is that under the left mount rubber is a little hole in the rack tube that should have a little nylon button that takes up play in the rack end. However if you use solid mounts you may find it will clamp the button too tight the choice is yours leave out or adjust.The holes in the chassis for the mounts should be slotted to enable the rubber mounts to be pulled up tight to the flanges on the rack thats what the plates with diagonal slots are for.

The other thing to watch for is when the column is fitted through the suspension tower the clearance of the joint is minimal.

[mylittletony]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Thanks for the info regarding the engine alignment, ticks one thing off the list!

I've fixed the pic links hopefully, I had moved them on photobucket but when I checked back they were still viewable so didn't update the links...

I intend to provide more pics and info next week when I visit again - hopefully will be doing it every week during their term time.

Regards,

Tony

[b_caswell]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Looks like a good project I have seen a lot worse although cant see the condition of the wings, they really do need to have some time spent getting them level at the front and a rethink on the support bracket. Have a look at the way later cars do it.

The pics are interesting (to me any way) thats another Mk1 with the deck return on the rear body. I wonder why that was dropped on later Mk1 cars.

Begining to wish I was back at school!

[Robert in Cumbria]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Do you have any pix of the Triumph front wing supports Ben?

What do you mean by the "deck return"?

[b_caswell]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

I now have a digital camera but cannot get it to upload pics to my computer at the moment,

On the Mk2 hybrid the car has a metal upturned hockey stick bracket that uses the top wishbone bolt(which needs to be longer than the original) and a second bolt in a drilling below that on the front of the tower. The blade of the hockey stick supports the wing with two chrome bolts either side of the side light moulding. If this version is used on the Mk1 you can straighten up the wing that has a tendency to droop on the original bracket that was further back.

If you look at Tony's pics the rear body has the square roll over the front edge of the GRP(that was dropped on later Mk1's leaving an exposed raw upturn) and the lift dots are further back there is a raised deck(not easy to see) about 4 inches wide this seems to be on only the first 30 or so cars.

[mylittletony]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

When I first saw it, the wings were loose, although from memory they are ok. There's a chance I could purchase it when finished, in which case it would get cycle fenders anyway...

If anyone would like me to take any specific photos I can oblige on Wednesday, just let me know.

Something else I remembered is that the engine mount brackets are simply pieces of angle welded on, is that correct? They look a little agricultural to say the least!

I'll update on Thursday.

Regards,

Tony

[b_caswell]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Mk1 Chassis number location.jpgSomething else I remembered is that the engine mount brackets are simply pieces of angle welded on, is that correct? They look a little agricultural to say the least!
[/QUOTE]
Thats what most Triumph chassis have. When my car was crash tested the engine did make an attempt at escaping by tearing the mounting but I have to say it was an extreme test.

Tony when you see the car next have a look to the left of the dateon the bulkhead nshould be the chassis number

[mylittletony]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Hi Ben, thanks for that.

I'd read the number but couldn't remember it! The date was easier as it's my wedding anniversary but a year before I was born!! I'll get as much info as i can this week, pics too

Also think I might take the opportunity to reinforce the engine mounts while it's apart...

cheers,

Tony

[mylittletony]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Weekly update!

Spent the couple of hours removing the side panels - I officially HATE slotted screw heads! Please see the pics below, I hope they show the rear bodywork, front nose mounting points and the 'shelf' at the rear of the passenger compartment.







I had thought of some questions, but they escape me for the time being...

Ah, yes - how would you remove/replace the windscreen?

Thanks!

[Robert in Cumbria]

Re: Early Triumph roadster - questions

Thanks for the Pix Tony. They have cleared up a few points.

I have salvaged the 'hockey stick' brackets from the rusty Marlin, I will adapt them for the Hybrid chassis.

It looks almost as bad as mine, without the terminal corrosion.

As for the windscreen I would smash it out and fit new. If you HAVE to get it out, depending on what it's stuck in with, perhaps a Power Hacksaw blade ground suitably, or a fine screwdriver and scrape the glue out. I have never tackled one but I suspect it would take hours depending on what has been used to stick it in. I suspect you could spend hours and the glass would crack at the last moment.

Laminated glass is cheap enough, I bought enough to easily make two Marlin screens earlier this year and it was £30.

I have the screen from the rusty chassis still in it's frame but no way will I be salvaging it. I have made a template for the glass man from some ply I recovered from the back of a wardrobe.