Jon J 1250

I don't have an answer, as have never seen otherwise, but my mid 1965 build Herald and my NOS BL era uprights both have the thick welded washers.

Seems logical, if you wanted to do it that way, even though there would be no reason why you couldn't do it the improved way....who knows. 🤷‍♂️ Thanks Jon

Just checked manual, it is second edition from late 1965, so quite early. I used the shallower discs as they match the originals, the crush tube was a tiny bit longer than the original so used the new one, the new seals were too thick and far too small go on the ends of the top hats without heating and stretching them to the right size….but because they’re too thick, annoyingly squeezed out of the discs when tightened. So I ended up reusing the original seals which were in good condition, after that everything went together perfectly. The curse of using modern repro parts I guess, but it could have been worse.

Thanks Pete, I did try searching for previous discussion but didn't see that. 👍

Thanks, I guess I'll keep on doing it the way I always have, never felt the need to look in the Workshop manual for this job, and then when i did, it totally threw me! 😄 I just hope the crush tube is long enough in this kit, I have heard bad things about this in some repro parts, if the tube is too short the whole joint will lock up when you torque it up.

Hi, I've just bought the currently available rear trunnion bush kit from one of the main parts suppliers. (i've always used NOS BL or QH before) A couple of questions: 1. See the first phot, the protective cupped washer that goes against the hub, the kit comes with two separate depths, any ideas why? (the shallow one seems to be correct) 2. See the second photo, the workshop manual says to put the rubber seal around the washer welded to the vertical link, I have never done this, have always put it on the outside edge of the trunnion bush to be enclosed by the two cupped washers as per the third photo. Surely that's correct, why would the manual suggest putting it on the outside? Would be interested to hear some thoughts. Cheers Jon

Herald 13/60's had them, but didn't use them.

Hi Eric, Interesting thanks, I am afraid I have no idea about using a manifold made for a different engine i am afraid. Clearly though, the inlet port sizes, spacing and mounting will have to be the same so that it fits, provides unimpeded flow and doesn't interfere with the exhaust manifold (they share studs and clamps). I would guess the Herald type twin SU setup with short inlet manifold should fit, as I am sure I have seen Standard 8/10's with these, you just can't use a 4-2-1 tubular exhaust manifold with it. Otherwise, you can get an inlet manifold for a twin choke weber carb for the 6 port head, not cheap though. Kind Regards Jon

HI Eric, Which SU inlet manifold do you have? If it is the Herald manifold for H1 carbs, that will be too short to use with a tubular 4 branch exhaust manifold and needs to be used with the correct cast manifold. If it is the Spitfire 4 or Mk2 manifold for HS2 carbs, you can use use with a tubular 4 branch exhaust manifold (as per Colin's), however due to the length of this inlet manifold it should be supported from below by the exhaust manifold, which as you can see Colin's has the bracket across the 4 pipes to do this, as will a Spitfire 4 cast manifold. Hope this is helpful. Regards Jon

There are various alternative buttons available made out of Delrin, an Polyurethane in circular and top hat shapes. I'm not 100% sure the originals were rubber as the ones in my original spring are like a hard black plastic and top hat shaped, though I can't say for sure they haven't hardened and been squashed into a top hat shape after 60 years in a leaf spring. (see photo) As well as reducing wear and noise (they do wear a ring into the spring, see photo), I guess the original springs were designed so that the correct set and therefore ride height is achieved with the buttons fitted. A problem I have seen others reports is the modern alternatives are too thick making the spring too curved, or making it hard to do the shackles up without straining the leaves, and giving high ride height and therefore too much positive camber when fitted. I'm just in the process of rebuilding my rear suspension and currently plan to get some poly buttons, but will thin them down a bit where necessary.

Thanks, interesting what you say about the bolts, bet a lot of people don't notice that detail. Peter Cox & Son who overhauled the diff should know what they are doing and appear to have reused the original bolts here to ensure good fit. Kind Regards Jon

Hi, The exhaust on my Herald 12/50 hangs quite low where it passes under the diff and rear chassis crossmember. Is it possible to fit a hanger from the diff to support the exhaust pipe, using this hole to mount it from? I think Spitfire's had a hanger here, will Spitfire parts work for this application? Kind Regards Jon

Thanks Colin, I appreciate you sharing your experience with these, but I think your last photo illustrates my concern. The gaps between the leaves are pretty large and so it looks a though you’re having to squeeze the spring in a vice so that you can get the shackle spacer tube and bolt in, I am no expert but suspect this is not how they were intended to work. This appears to be stressing the leaves, making a pinch point at the shackle and may wear excessively on the hard contact surfaces, plus I can’t see how this won’t produce too much positive camber unless you’re using a spring that has already sagged quite a bit. I have looked at photos of new and nos springs and they don’t look like this. I’ll keep an open mind but think it’ll go with cutting some out of a sheet of good quality rubber for now. Regards Jon

Hi all, I have my 55k mile spring apart, but I have to say I am not convinced by the alternative thrust buttons available on eBay. They look much too thick to me, maybe they’re just intended to fix sagging springs, but mine gives slight positive camber even with the original buttons, see photos, I don’t want to encourage the old swing axle party trick! Also I’m fairly sure the buttons are intended to shear rather than slide much on the spring as evidenced by the ring wear mark the have left on the top of the next leaf. Surely a button made of a hard material will slide and over time risk wearing into the leaf below. I have seen the trouble Steve’s Project Car Garage had with putting his Spitfire spring back together with the Delrin buttons (@£30/set). He eventually admitted removing them as the rear suspension wouldn’t go back together properly with them fitted….I’m really not convinced about this, I suspect some good quality rubber buttons will be best here. Regards Jon

I've now got one that is almost the same, the glass pattern is exactly the same, the Wattage is 75/50W, whereas the Triumph Herald version would be (i think) 60/45W. It confirms the pattern to be Lucas Powerbeam 7010 (or 60-7010) which can be seen on the box and back of the light unit. Checking my trusty Lucas 1965 Triumph parts book you can see the Herald Lucas part number should be 54521872 (for RHD), whereas the box of the sealed beam I have shows 54522480 (which I think is a Jaguar unit). So there you go, if anyone is looking for an original sealed beam, it is a 7010 like the one pictured but with Lucas part no. 54521872 on the box. I think I'll look out for another 75/50W version for a slight upgrade one day (with a fuse and relay). If anyone has anything else to add please comment. Jon

This is type I have and is the original type you typically see on mid 60's heralds. They have a distinctive diagonal pattern on them, which you don't see on most other Lucas or aftermarket 700 or 7XXX types. Another feature is the 3 raised nibs arount the circumference at 2, 6 and 10 o'clock positions, but you do see that on other Lucas lamps too. Having done some research I currently think these are Lucas 7010 sealed beam units. It's impressive that these light units are still working and dimly lighting up the way ahead after nearly 60 years! lol

Thanks Pete, Yes I am looking to find some nos spares, they are certainly out there, but nobody advertises them as Triumph Herald headlights in the NOS world, so need to know specifically what they are. Kind Regards Jon

Hi all, I have the correct Lucas part catalog number but I am still struggling to find which type of 7" sealed beam unit was originally fitted to the Herald in 1965-ish, the catalog number doesn't really help with this. The number I am looking for will be a 4 digit part number, something like Powerbeam 7603 or 7033, but it is neither of those. Does anyone out there know what it is? Kind Regards Jon

Hi, thanks you're probably right for some of the later roofs, I have no experience with them. Just for clarity though for any future viewers of this conversation: What I can say, because I took apart my original Herald 12/50 roof to save cost, is that there are no plastic welded seams on it, they are all stitched with heavy duty cotton/natural fibre thread, and the front and back edges are glued, and the inner frame covers on each edge are stapled on. (the thread was upgraded to nylon when making the new cover. I am sure my roof has never previously been re-covered, as the car has never been restored, and i've owned it 30 years (I'm the 2nd owner) Regards Jon

Hi, if yours is a Weathershields roof, I don’t think these have welded seams so far as I know everything is machine stitched. Jon

Hi Pete, My roof is the factory original from my Herald 12/50, it is a Weathershields Ltd roof (I have the little paper label somewhere), clearly with exposed spars and the Triumph longhorn headlining.. Out of interest, do you happen to know if the Canley factory ever fitted anything different to the Herald/Vitesse on the production line? I would hazard a guess that Britax and Webasto roofs would be DIY or dealer fitment, and factory orders for sunroofs would be like mine. Jon

Yes fingers crossed, you may be lucky, they were improving the design all the time so if yours is later than mine you may be in luck, plus yours might have had some work done in the past. Mine had not been repaired before (aside from bit of wedgewood blue paint on the interior frame) and was surprisingly crusty for a 60k mile car that has always been garaged, but I guess at 60 years old, I shouldn't be too surprised, plus the original paint applied by Weathershields to the steel parts was laughably thin!. Looks as good as new now though. ( I will get round to refitting it over the winter) Regards Jon

I have have just been through this myself on a 1965 Herald 12/50. Headlining in original Triumph longhorn pattern from Newton Commercial was about £50, but I had somebody recover it for me as the front and rear plates of the sliding roof sections had rotted at either end an needed to be remade, as did the ends of the two sliding framework sections. The plates need to be made on an English wheel as they have compound curves and the back one usually needs new threaded studs on the outer ends too. You'll be looking at close to £1000 to pay a pro do all this. The chap who did it for me said it was the earliest, most basic one heed ever done, but rather more fiddly than the later Weathershields Ltd roofs, by which time they had perfected the design and had a nicer headlining that covers the frame. He offered me this option, but I chose to keep mine original. Kind Regards Jon

No problem I happen to have a few from when I did a condition report on my car. There are three holes. Jon

Hi All, As some may have seen on Facebook, i have got my loop pile Herald !2/50 moulded carpets in Cahrcoal grey and as you can see, they are a big improvement on the standard Newton's Carpets. Very happy with them (so long as they fit properly), means I can finally stop worrying about wear and tear on my good original carpets, which can be stored safely in my loft, and I can enjoy the car a bit more.. A couple of images of new and NOS original footwell carpets for comparison. Jon