NonMember

It looks like it feeds the brake light switch. This being a very early car, the hydraulic switch is probably correct, although I suspect that specific fitting isn't.

Tell? Where's the fun in that? Leave it to people's imaginations! (The person in question was the AO so I don't want to steal his thunder)

Agree on the etch prime but I also agree with Colin - add some good coats of standard primer over that for a bit more protection. You will be rubbing it down when it comes out of storage anyway.

A one way valve there shouldn't be needed (and was never a factory fit) because the fuel pump has one-way valves internally - that's how it works. It may have been fitted to mask a problem with the pump, or it may just be one of those unnecessary "must haves" that Pete started a thread about.

I don't think that's an "older generation" thing. Americans are generally far more in the habit of being respectfully polite to strangers and many will address most adult males as "sir" by default.

You shouldn't run it under the chassis and the factory definitely never did. Anything routed under the chassis becomes the lowest point of the car and hence most vulnerable. That's definitely not something you want your brake pipes to be! Along the side of a chassis rail is fine as it's quite a protected place.

The chap who fitted my Spitfire's interior said that the door trim clips usually supplied with interior trim kits are of very poor quality with no spring force, so they just don't work.

No. An anti-roll bar does almost exactly the opposite job to a camber compensator. Anti-roll bars resist roll by trying to force both sides to the same height, but don't care what that height is. So if the left side tries to compress up into the wheel arch, the anti-roll bar pushes the right side up into its wheel arch to reduce body roll. Camber compensators resist plunge by providing an extra (quite stiff) spring leaf, but are pivoted in the middle so that they don't resist roll. If the left side tries to compress up into the wheel arch, the camber compensator pushes the right side down, out of its wheel arch, thus discouraging tuck-under. It's very much the same theory as the swing spring - if the lateral forces on the tyre are trying to lift one side of the car, it tries to drop the other side, thus putting more weight on the side that's being lifted, and resisting that lift. It won't discourage body roll - in fact it will encourage it - but if the front of the car has enough roll resistance it will combat the tendency of swing-axle suspension to jack up when cornering.

The 1/4" was fine for a Mk1, OK for a Mk2 2L, but not for a 2.5PI or TR5. Triumph commonised on 5/16" because it became the standard for the saloons. I think they even used it on 1500 Spitfires. That's common. The tank was designed for the earlier 1/4" pipe. They could change the bulk of the pipe really easily and cheaply. Changing the tank would have cost. The same short stub of 1/4" at the tank, then 5/16" to the front, was used on Dolomites, including the Sprint. In fact, I rather suspect that's the only reason the later GT6s have that bit of rubber there.

I have a set like Clive's that I bought from Eastwood (shows how long ago!) and it's given very good service.

I wish we'd been there joining you guys but the Cambridge area were decimated by random illness. Nothing exotic or newsworthy - just run of the mill colds (or in one case, having spent a night sleeping on a concrete floor and being too knackered).

It's really not. The pump has a pretty good suck and will pull a fair bit more than the engine will use, as long as the pipe is clear.

The problem is that you need a non-flammable sheet. Most readily available "blanket" type materials will catch fire when a bit of weld spatter or spray of grinder dust hits them. There's no real force involved so no great thickness or strength needed, just flame retardant and heat resistant.

I think the Mk1 had 1/4" all the way but the Mk2/3 used 5/16" for most of it. That certainly seems to have been true of the Vitesse.

Citroen have long tended to over-boost their brakes. The DS (the original contemporary of our cars, not the modern badge) was criticised in the motoring press of the day for its "brake switch" which rammed the full anchors on at the lightest touch. Mine is a late Rotoflex one, so no servo. The brakes are a little heavier than the Vitesse, which in turn is a little heavier than the Spitfire, which is a bit heavier than the Mondeo. All four are reasonable and controllable. Unlike the Citroen loan cars from my local garage, which have ALL their controls set to featherlight and no feel.

I remember discovering that the TR7 front pads are the same ones as a classic Mini, after doing the Round Britain Reliability Run in my Sprint-engined one, still on standard brakes. They worked... enough. In fact, at one point, on realising I was driving rather too fast toward a sharp bend with another TR7 Sprint behind me, I braked as hard as I could... and slowed nicely to a pace where I could get round. The chap behind had better brakes and locked all four wheels. However, after getting home I believe his brakes still worked, whereas one of my pads had overheated to the point that the lining fell off. It didn't have standard brakes for much longer after that.

OK, so first, 1/4" copper (or cunifer) pipe is readily available from specialists, though you do have to be careful because 6mm is a standard microbore that's extremely widely available but won't do the job. Naturally, I have some of both. The original would have been steel, of course. I believe I bought the 1/4" stuff as a kit for my Spitfire from a trader at Stoneleigh a few years back. If you do decide to go for "cut and shut", I've certainly had MOT men object to significant lengths of rubber fuel hose under the car, but I reckon four inches would be fine. The car that had rubber from the front outrigger all the way to the pump (at least 6") never got queried.

Doug, I remember both those threads and I think you're misrepresenting them somewhat.

Yep, that's the servo tapping for a 1500 Dolomite, which used the same manifold.

If it's a Herald screen it should fit, regardless of toughened/laminated or engine size. And yes, the toughened ones are not expensive - worth so little, in fact, that I couldn't be bothered to keep the one I removed from a scrap 13/60 back in the day 🙁

The CB prefix certainly doesn't match your car but I suspect you may be mis-reading a GB, which would. Unfortunately, it matches all Heralds including the very early ones with the tie rod. However, that high a number would suggest a later one, probably appropriate to your car's age.

Well... yes and no. If you have just a little bit of servo then it helps. If you over-servo to the extreme feather-touch level of most modern cars then, in an "oh shit" moment, you lock all four wheels and careen off into the impact completely out of control. Unless you have ABS, too, of course.

Hmm... Sorry to say this after the event but that breakage pattern is rather suggestive of it being a laminated screen. Pete (and others) did say the "give it a good shove" advice only applied to toughened ones.

Unlike the others, I've never felt the need to re-torque the head on a push-rod Triumph. It was definitely needed on the 1850 Dolomite (but that engine is designed to be re-torqued without even taking a rocker cover off).

Happy birthday Doug. I get the "oh, a Herald" too, along with the GT6 being called an MGB or, occasionally, a Spitfire. The Spitfire itself is the most likely to get a "what's that?", being a Mk3 with (at the moment) no badges on the boot.