Gauges

[naskeet]

On which off-road race track was that, given that 70 mph is the ABSOLUTE maximum speed limit in Great Britain on the public highways - motorways & dual-carriageways, whilst 110 km/h or 130 km/h (circa 82 mph) are the ABSOLUTE maximum speed limits in many European countries!?!

An engine with a substituted alternative camshaft with increased duration & lift, plus increased compression ratio, could hardly be regarded as factory-standard!

1. None of your business, but I will say I had our spitfire up to 208kmh perfectly legally in June, on the way to slovenia. With the lady wife and a boot full of luggage... it would have done more, but the traffic was getting busy ahead. You need to think bigger about what these cars can achieve. And what you say about speed limits is incorrect, and Carledo is bang on about there being places within the UP and Europe where there are NO speed limits at all.
My Toledo was not a highly modified car at all, it made 91bhp on the rollers once set up. But as stated, it would sit at 100mph and that too was 4 up.... (we were running a bit late for an event)

If my memory serves me correctly, the factory-standard Triumph Toledo 1300 engine is rated at 58 bhp.

I am, or at least was, acquainted with many parts of Europe - north, south, east & west, but I have never heard of the UP!?!

Being fully laden, might increase the car's rolling resistance and slightly decrease aerodynamic resistance owing to reduced ride-height, but I doubt whether it would reduce its maximum speed on a level road.

The maximum speed uphill would be reduced because the power needed to climb a gradient equals the rate of change of gravitational potential energy, which is the product of g = 9•81 m/s², the vehicle's mass, the vehicle's speed and the sine of the gradient angle to the horizontal.

Acceleration would be reduced, because the power needed for acceleration is the product of mass, velocity & acceleration [i.e. P = mva], which can be derived using the differential calculus "chain-rule" to differentiate kinetic energy = ½mv² with respect to time.

I sometimes drove my father's 1986 Ford Sierra XR4x4 (maximum attainable speed of circa 130 mph) which was a very nice, agile, sure-footed car to drive on twisty, windy roads, but I would not be tempted to exceed the speed limit, because potential hazards lurk around every blind bend, in every concealed farm entrance / exit or concealed road junction. As it clearly states in Roadcraft - the police driver's manual, "any fool can drive fast enough to be dangerous"!

Even though speed limits might not be specified or set rediculously high in some countries, it does not mean that it would be safe to drive at those speeds! One has only to examine the statistics pertaining to the deaths and injuries on the roads in these various countries!

Although automotive technology and cars' maximum attainable speeds have evolved over the past decades, humans, human thinking speeds, human reaction times, human eyesight and human driving capabilities in general, have not evolved at anywhere near the same pace.

As "Carledo" has stated, we are limited by the "Laws of Physics" (something with which I am all too familiar as a physicist) which dictates that unless one has retro-rockets, drogue parachutes or other means of deceleration other than friction between tyres and the road (unless aided by aerodynamic down-force), dictates that the braking distance is proportional to the square of one's speed.

[cliftyhanger]

If my memory serves me correctly, the factory-standard Triumph Toledo 1300 engine is rated at 58 bhp.

I am, or at least was, acquainted with many parts of Europe - north, south, east & west, but I have never heard of the UP!?!

Being fully laden, might increase the car's rolling resistance and slightly decrease aerodynamic resistance owing to reduced ride-height, but I doubt whether it would reduce its maximum speed on a level road.

The maximum speed uphill would be reduced because the power needed to climb a gradient equals the rate of change of gravitational potential energy, which is the product of g = 9•81 m/s², the vehicle's mass, the vehicle's speed and the sine of the gradient angle to the horizontal.

Acceleration would be reduced, because the power needed for acceleration is the product of mass, velocity & acceleration [i.e. P = mva], which can be derived using the differential calculus "chain-rule" to differentiate kinetic energy = ½mv² with respect to time.

I sometimes drove my father's 1986 Ford Sierra XR4x4 (maximum attainable speed of circa 130 mph) which was a very nice, agile, sure-footed car to drive on twisty, windy roads, but I would not be tempted to exceed the speed limit, because potential hazards lurk around every blind bend, in every concealed farm entrance / exit or concealed road junction. As it clearly states in Roadcraft - the police driver's manual, "any fool can drive fast enough to be dangerous"!

Even though speed limits might not be specified or set rediculously high in some countries, it does not mean that it would be safe to drive at those speeds! One has only to examine the statistics pertaining to the deaths and injuries on the roads in these various countries!

Although automotive technology and cars' maximum attainable speeds have evolved over the past decades, humans, human thinking speeds, human reaction times, human eyesight and human driving capabilities in general, have not evolved at anywhere near the same pace.

As "Carledo" has stated, we are limited by the "Laws of Physics" (something with which I am all too familiar as a physicist) which dictates that unless one has retro-rockets, drogue parachutes or other means of deceleration other than friction between tyres and the road (unless aided by aerodynamic down-force), dictates that the braking distance is proportional to the square of one's speed.

Life is not about numbers and physics in the way you are trying to make out. Quoting O level maths/physics is meaningless here. Most of us don't need the equations, we just "know" stuff. And although your braking equation is sort of correct, it is massively oversimplified and in real life will be affected by temperature. Of disc, pads, and how the CoF of the pads is affected by temp. Horribly complex, and teh only way to find out is a practical expt. I know BCC carry out such tests.
And if you read my explanation of my highish speed run to Slovenia, the road was a proper Autobahn, and you should have picked up that I was aware of traffic conditions ahead as I mentioned it.
UP was a typo, UK is what I meant, but that is factually incorrect. Crown dependancy is a better term.

[naskeet]

Probably not much use to you, but it may stir ideas, and its huge amount of work, with my Toledo, and the seating position I have to adopt, of all the 4 auxiliary gauges fitted, there is only one I don't have to wriggle around to see clearly, so, I started playing BIGTIME with the opportune purchase of a plank dash I started playing with ideas,












6 idiot lights too, L & R indicators top outer, Oil, mid left, "Shift Light" mid right, bottom 2 will be beam and ignition

Ian, if you had a “four-headlamp” Dolomite sculptured dashboard with removable concave instrument panel and adjustable steering-column & 14½ inch steering-wheel with associated nacelle & switches, you would have more scope for positioning gauges, warning lights & switches, in places that are more readily visible & accessible.

My 1974 Triumph Toledo 1300 “HL Special” was upgraded in the early-1980s with all of the above, together with Dolomite 1850 HL rear seats & front seats (with head restraints & magazine cum map pockets on the back), of which the driver’s seat has three each of fore & aft height-adjustment positions. I have plans to further upgrade the instrumentation package, which will include the full-size 105 mm speedometer & tachometer, plus seven gauges (i.e. oil-pressure, oil-temperature, coolant-temperature, fuel-level, ammeter, voltmeter & inlet-manifold vacuum) and two customised Triumph-Lucas 8-segment warning-light clusters, all of which will be clearly visible without having to “wriggle around”; something I determined by creating a cardboard mock-up a few years ago. I have yet to decide where to locate the early-model Dolomite 1850, 60 mm diameter Kienzle clock, but a central console below the dashboard would probably be the most convenient.

[ian.stewart]

Well the dash has been fitted and removed and refitted several times, with the addition of a 11mm t=ratchet spanner which I managed to get stuck behind the dash whilst bolting the column bracket together, with the spanner being non reversible it took ages to get it off without destroying the dash, I have trial fitted the gauges, and I can clearly see the instruments from my seating position. which has been the object of this journey,

Come the time to fit the switches and I was struggling to get the nuts tight without damaging the dash, time to make a tool, with six points of contacts, the first thought was make socket from miliput, that idea bit the dust when I found my stash of Miliput had gone off, eventually the thought of a modified 12 point socket might work. a bit of measuring, it looked like a 15/16ths socket would work, out with the Dremel and ground off every other point from the inside of the socket, surprisingly, it worked!!!!

[naskeet]

Life is not about numbers and physics in the way you are trying to make out. Quoting O level maths/physics is meaningless here. Most of us don't need the equations, we just "know" stuff.

For those who « don’t need equations and just “know” stuff », how would you set about determining the curvature of the “four-headlamp” Dolomite’s factory-standard, concave instrument panel, in order to fabricate a bespoke replacement concave instrument panel for many more gauges and warning lights!?!

I did it quickly (in less than ¼-hour) and easily, simply by taking two linear measurements, using just a straight-edge and a tape measure, plus a calculation using a rearranged “simple-formula” from GCE “O” Level Mathematics or GCSE (Higher Tier) Mathematics, but then I am one of those people who is comfortable with deriving, manipulating and using equations and formulae! I used the same formula to determine the maximum tyre external-circumference that would fit in my 1973 VW Type 2 Kombi’s upright spare-wheel well; using other formulae to predict the circumference, diameter & radius of many different tyre sizes, without having to physically measure any.

For the past few decades, automotive design & development has relied increasingly on the formulation & solution of mathematical equations (e.g. simultaneous, time-dependent, ordinary or partial differential equations, in multiple variables), solved numerically using a variety of mathematical techniques, including FEA – Finite Element Analysis & BEA – Boundary Element Analysis, many of which I studied during 1990~91, in the CMG – Computational Mathematics Group of the RMCS – Royal Military College of Science. Modern automotive engineering is not for those who are shy of using a few simple mathematical equations or formulae!

It’s strange how some people try to portray ignorance as a virtue!

When I was teaching the Physical Sciences module (one of the critical core-modules, which students had to pass) of BTEC First Diploma Engineering (a Level 2 course), in the Department of Engineering & Motor-Vehicle Studies, at SEECAT – South East Essex College of Arts & Technology, during 1992~93, many of my circa 52~54 students, split between 3 classes, seemed to be of the same view!

Sadly, their cavalier attitude to study and educational attainment, led all but 5 of them to fail the course! I suspect that many of them would have prized an ASBO above a BTEC First Diploma! One of them was sentenced to one year’s incarceration (23 hours alone in a cell each day) in Feltham Young Offenders Institute, for trying to burn down his former school!!!

BTEC specified that the minimum entry requirement for this course, was CSE Grade 2 (roughly equivalent to GCSE Grade D) in Science, Mathematics and probably English, but the highest grade, gained by only a few of the students, was Grade E, most of them having Grades F or G; which for most purposes would be regarded as classified bad-failure grades, so far as employment or further education are concerned. This BTEC First Diploma Engineering module was assessed by a combination of continuous assessment (0•60 weighting factor) and final written exam (0•40 weighting factor).

One needed to gain a minimum score of 40% in each of the two components, but gain an overall weighted average of at least 50% to pass overall. This meant that if students managed to scrape only a marginal pass (i.e. 40%) in the written exam, they would need to gain a minimum of 57% for the continuous assessment. Had they managed to scrape only a marginal pass (i.e. 40%) in the continuous assessment, they would need to gain a minimum of 65% for the written exam. This is why I encouraged the students to complete the six continuous-assessment assignments to the best of their ability, to partly relieve psychological stress and minimise the required exam pass mark needed.

Although approximately half the students managed to “pass” the dumbed-down written exam at 40% or more, very few students had submitted any of the six continuous-assessment assignments, despite offers of one-to-one help & guidance plus regular repeated reminders from me about the consequences, so only 5 students gained an overall pass in this vital core-module.

Whilst I was helping out in the Motor-Vehicle Studies workshop, explaining basic automotive-technology related theory, to City & Guilds students, I was also able to teach myself how to use some of specialised tools such as a valve grinder and valve-seat cutter & grinder, which I was able to use as part of my DIY programme to upgrade the VW 17/1800 Type 4 style, hybridised, 1911 cm³ displacement, air-cooled engine, which involved “gas-flowing” the aluminium-alloy cylinder heads using a rotary-file, reprofiling the valves & valve-seats, reducing the pistons’ squish-clearance, balancing the connecting-rods & pistons to within ± 0•1 grammes and equalising the combustion-chamber volumes to within ± 0•1 cm³.

[naskeet]

Well the dash has been fitted and removed and refitted several times, with the addition of a 11mm t=ratchet spanner which I managed to get stuck behind the dash whilst bolting the column bracket together, with the spanner being non reversible it took ages to get it off without destroying the dash, I have trial fitted the gauges, and I can clearly see the instruments from my seating position. which has been the object of this journey,

That seems to have worked out better than I anticipated. One possible cause for concern, is the reflections from the gauges' glass lenses, apparent in your photograph, which might make it difficult to properly see the gauge readings. Also be wary of sunlight reflecting off the polished stainless-steel windscreen-wiper arms and steering-wheel spokes, which can be a significant safety hazard when the sun is shining from a certain direction, as I discovered from personal experience!

Come the time to fit the switches and I was struggling to get the nuts tight without damaging the dash, time to make a tool, with six points of contacts, the first thought was make socket from miliput, that idea bit the dust when I found my stash of Miliput had gone off, eventually the thought of a modified 12 point socket might work. a bit of measuring, it looked like a 15/16ths socket would work, out with the Dremel and ground off every other point from the inside of the socket, surprisingly, it worked!!!!

Necessity is the mother of invention!

[cliftyhanger]

Life is not about numbers and physics in the way you are trying to make out. Quoting O level maths/physics is meaningless here. Most of us don't need the equations, we just "know" stuff.

For those who « don’t need equations and just “know” stuff », how would you set about determining the curvature of the “four-headlamp” Dolomite’s factory-standard, concave instrument panel, in order to fabricate a bespoke replacement concave instrument panel for many more gauges and warning lights!?!



It’s strange how some people try to portray ignorance as a virtue!

You still don't get it!

Time for you to have a good look at the stuff you are writing. Filling a post with irrelevent waffle doesn't make you look knowledgeable.

[ClassicFan]

Even though speed limits might not be specified or set rediculously high in some countries, it does not mean that it would be safe to drive at those speeds! One has only to examine the statistics pertaining to the deaths and injuries on the roads in these various countries!

Having driven on Germanys autobahns in heavy rain at 60 mph because of the very poor visibility and being passed by Merc, BMW, Porches seemingly going flat out with there eyes closed, one wonders how so many more aren't added to those statistics.

Back on topic: Glare from modern dashboards is an issue (especially so with some cars with Head Up Displays) as well as on older cars but hopefully shouldn't be to bad on the Dolomite for most of the year in the UK

[James467]

I thought 100 mph was over-optimistic for a factory-standard Triumph Toledo 1300 speedometer, but 170 mph as indicated by your after-market accessory speedometer would be unatainable!

Even downhill with a following wind, a Triumph Toledo 1300 would struggle to reach 80 mph!

You are underestimating these cars. Well, the 100mph. 170 would need a vast amount of power.
I have sat at 100mph or a tad over in a Toledo fitted with a better cam and raised CR, but otherwise standard. It did have overdrive, and a 4.11 diff. And that speed was via GPS so accurate. No reason a 1300 could not achieve that or indeed more.

On which off-road race track was that, given that 70 mph is the ABSOLUTE maximum speed limit in Great Britain on the public highways - motorways & dual-carriageways, whilst 110 km/h or 130 km/h (circa 82 mph) are the ABSOLUTE maximum speed limits in many European countries!?!

An engine with a substituted alternative camshaft with increased duration & lift, plus increased compression ratio, could hardly be regarded as factory-standard!

A factory-standard, VW 411/412LE engine [VW Type 4 style air-cooled engine with 1679 cm³ displacement & 8•2:1 compression ratio | 80 DIN hp @ 4900 rpm] develops much more torque & power than a VW 1700 Type 2 engine [VW Type 4 style air-cooled engine with 1679 cm³ displacement & 7•3:1 compression ratio | 66 DIN hp @ 4800 rpm].

I was cruising at 95 on the M40 a couple of weeks ago in my 23 year old 330k mile VW van!